Part of my dissertation looks at the next American Census, and the changes which have been made, and yet I never thought to look at what was happening to the British Census, due in 2011. An article on Cranmer changed that however, and it's frankly alarming.
Personally I find the fact that Jedi became the 4th largest religion hilarious, it's nice to see that a vast swathe of the population have a sense of humour. I'm sure it annoys bureaucrats no end, which makes it even better. However this is not my concern with the Census. As far as I know, its primary purpose is to allow the correct allocation of funds to local authorities and groups working with particular communities.
If this is true, then I don't see the need to register the names, sex and date of birth of any 'overnight visitors'. Quite what a B&B is going to do I'm not sure, they'll need thousands of forms. The question I would like answered is why the Government and the Census Bureau feel that they need this information. How can it possibly benefit them, or make their lives easier. Are they planning on introducing a limit on the number of visitors we are allowed, or a curfew perhaps? Or maybe they just want to track us all, as the EU has proposed to do with our cars
They have also beefed up the nationality question. Apparently British isn't good enough. I expect they decided that it violated the human rights of Scottish nationalists. But we're all so used to just handing over the information that a form requests that we will blindly do their bidding. I hope people find that sense of humour again in 2011.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Taking Liberties
I recently saw this film, which was made in 2007 and is available for all NO2ID branches to screen. If you're interested in this topic, then it's definitely worth a watch. Be prepared to want to throw a lot of things at the screen in rage and disgust though, and to leave feeling very aware of just how free we no longer are.
How much power does the Royal Mail need?
So the Royal Mail are striking. This is potentially a good thing given the new powers which have been vested upon them by the government, without Parliament having ever even discussed it.
Outlined by an article in The Times, they can now:
No longer am I surprised by the actions of a Labour government, and yet most of the public would, I expect, be extremely surprised to hear this. Partly because this story only made the Law section of The Times. In particular, I would love to have heard the conversation in which these ideas were originally put forward. Somebody suggested that these would be a good idea, that they are a necessary step, and that there was nothing wrong with giving these bodies such powers. As I discussed in my blog on elections, this idea has been round many people all of whom we are to assume have been appointed because of their intellect. And yet none thought that this was perhaps a step too far. Why is this the case? Why are we governed by people who are so detatched from reality and who have such disdain for personal freedom?
Outlined by an article in The Times, they can now:
- Search your house
- Freeze your bank account
- Confiscate your possession
No longer am I surprised by the actions of a Labour government, and yet most of the public would, I expect, be extremely surprised to hear this. Partly because this story only made the Law section of The Times. In particular, I would love to have heard the conversation in which these ideas were originally put forward. Somebody suggested that these would be a good idea, that they are a necessary step, and that there was nothing wrong with giving these bodies such powers. As I discussed in my blog on elections, this idea has been round many people all of whom we are to assume have been appointed because of their intellect. And yet none thought that this was perhaps a step too far. Why is this the case? Why are we governed by people who are so detatched from reality and who have such disdain for personal freedom?
BUCF post
This post was written for the BUCF Blog, and can be found here
Let me start by disclaiming that Civil Liberties are the one area of policy that I am most interested in right now. They’ve taken a battering under Labour throughout the last twelve years. They will struggle to do anything right on this issue in my eyes; Given their record I’m naturally suspicious. Even if you don’t agree with me on that, then perhaps you will agree that as rights go, the right to vote is a pretty important one. Essential, in fact, to the entire idea of a democracy. And so it is with dismay that I read this morning in The Times that the Civil Service have been looking at ways of making elections cheaper, regardless of how it impacts upon the 60 million people in this country who deserve to be given the fullest opportunity to use their vote.
The proposals have since been shot down by Jack Straw who has described them as ’simply unacceptable’, and this is perhaps for your benefit as a reader because it prevents me going on a rant about the subject. However, I feel it actually opens up an even more important point.
The ideas which were being circulated included having fewer polling stations, closing polling stations earlier and replacing polling cards with a call centre. The last one in particular seems utterly ridiculous in that it would cause absolute chaos if you had to phone a call centre before being allowed to vote. The idea of closing polling stations earlier also seems bizarre given that they are threatening not to count the votes until the folowing day. One way or another they’re determined not to work for us.
Had a think tank compiled this report and had it shot down, it would not have worried me unduly. If it had been a leak from an irrelevant Civil Servant again, it would have been excusable. But this report has been seen by those in charge of organising elections and by local government Chief Executives. This raises two important points. Firstly, how could a minister not know about something, which changes something so fundamental to our democracy, being sent our for consultation. And secondly how did no-one object to the plans until it was leaked to The Times? Do the officials, many of whom are un-elected, really care that little about our democracy that they are willing to make it harder for us to vote in order to save what is, in terms of the national budget, peanuts?
I understand that all departments want, or perhaps need, to save money wherever they can because our government has destroyed our national finances. But saving £65 million at the expense of democracy seems utterly ridiculous. Today the Youth Parliament is meeting in the House of Commons. They would be free, which would save even more. Just saying.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Playing Politics with Liberty
It hadn't dawned on me until now that the last post also carried risk. If civil liberties does become a political football, then it could go either way. Either, parties will be forced to go further and think more carefully about what exactly they would repeal, or they will try and score points off each other over the issue, removing any semblance of genuine debate which benefits the issue and the people of this country.
Unfortunately, it would appear to be the latter, certainly at the moment, and while I may support one party, I try and write on this issue in a fairly neutral light which is why it is a shame that Chris Huhne is coming out with comments that the Liberal Democrats are the only party who care about the issue. He clearly forgets that the Conservatives support most of his plans, and highlighted the issue of the DNA Database when Damien Green tried to get his DNA removed, which he successfully did.
Generally I like Chris Huhne, he knows his brief, and he articulates his message well. He is also high profile enough to help the issue get some traction. However, by throwing in comments about Labour and the Conservatives, he's not helping generate a debate on the issue he is apparently so passionate about.
David Cameron recently wrote an article on the benefits of working together to correct Labour's erosion, and while many Liberal Democrats feel he stole their thunder and claimed credit that should have been theirs, when you look at the two parties on this issue, it's easy to choose which one you'd want to get in to power to repair our liberty.
Update:
As is proof was needed, Article 1 and Article 2.
Why oh why does it have to be someone's issue. Why can't they just debate the issue, talk about the ideas, and why they disagree with policy rather than complaining that someone else is talking about their issue. Surely that's the idea of talking about it yourself in the first place?
Unfortunately, it would appear to be the latter, certainly at the moment, and while I may support one party, I try and write on this issue in a fairly neutral light which is why it is a shame that Chris Huhne is coming out with comments that the Liberal Democrats are the only party who care about the issue. He clearly forgets that the Conservatives support most of his plans, and highlighted the issue of the DNA Database when Damien Green tried to get his DNA removed, which he successfully did.
Generally I like Chris Huhne, he knows his brief, and he articulates his message well. He is also high profile enough to help the issue get some traction. However, by throwing in comments about Labour and the Conservatives, he's not helping generate a debate on the issue he is apparently so passionate about.
David Cameron recently wrote an article on the benefits of working together to correct Labour's erosion, and while many Liberal Democrats feel he stole their thunder and claimed credit that should have been theirs, when you look at the two parties on this issue, it's easy to choose which one you'd want to get in to power to repair our liberty.
Update:
As is proof was needed, Article 1 and Article 2.
Why oh why does it have to be someone's issue. Why can't they just debate the issue, talk about the ideas, and why they disagree with policy rather than complaining that someone else is talking about their issue. Surely that's the idea of talking about it yourself in the first place?
Friday, 18 September 2009
Good News
Mike Smithson, over at Political Betting has some numbers which suggest that civil liberties could well be an issue at the general election, which would be brilliant. The likelihood of this was increased by a recent speech given be Dominic Grieve on how he would like to reverse the creation of a "surveillance state."
The issue usually falls pretty low down when voters are asked what they care about, but people moan about being told what to do on a regular basis, and if the Conservatives can begin engaging with the people on how they would like to remove much of this intrusion, then people will hopefully gain a greater understanding of just how much we have lost under Labour.
The issue usually falls pretty low down when voters are asked what they care about, but people moan about being told what to do on a regular basis, and if the Conservatives can begin engaging with the people on how they would like to remove much of this intrusion, then people will hopefully gain a greater understanding of just how much we have lost under Labour.
Monday, 7 September 2009
The BNP and Question Time
Apparently, the BBC have invited BNP leader Nick Griffen on to Question Time at some point in the near future, and the left wing are up in arms about this. Their argument goes that by going on TV, this will raise the profile of the BNP and the party will get more support.
The Conservatives have apparently said they will appear anyway, to take the BNP head-on and challenge their views and this to me seems to be absolutely the right thing to do. The views of the BNP are legitimate in that they're allowed to have them, just like I'm allowed to have mine. I don't agree with the views, and if I can convince someone to think likewise then I will try. But ignoring them clearly isn't going to work. There is no counter to their views, so the propaganda is taken to be true. And with 2 MEPs elected, clearly plenty of people were convinced.
This is supposed to be a democracy. And if the leader of the BNP wants to appear on such an important political program then let him. After the expenses scandal people expect more of their MPs, so he's going to have to impress people. And unless the rest of the panel show up to challenge his views, then he can hide his true colours for one night. Democracy is best when there is lively debate and strong opposing views. Running away from that helps noone.
The Conservatives have apparently said they will appear anyway, to take the BNP head-on and challenge their views and this to me seems to be absolutely the right thing to do. The views of the BNP are legitimate in that they're allowed to have them, just like I'm allowed to have mine. I don't agree with the views, and if I can convince someone to think likewise then I will try. But ignoring them clearly isn't going to work. There is no counter to their views, so the propaganda is taken to be true. And with 2 MEPs elected, clearly plenty of people were convinced.
This is supposed to be a democracy. And if the leader of the BNP wants to appear on such an important political program then let him. After the expenses scandal people expect more of their MPs, so he's going to have to impress people. And unless the rest of the panel show up to challenge his views, then he can hide his true colours for one night. Democracy is best when there is lively debate and strong opposing views. Running away from that helps noone.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
The Police become Criminals
I'm feeling generous today. Or maybe I'm just loathing stupidity, it's one of the two, but whichever one it is, I'm giving the Daily Mail the benefit of the doubt.
Really, the Mail says it all, and I'm not even going to attempt to rival their sensationalist writing accompanied by the outrage that the police should be stopping other people breaking in to your car, not doing it themselves. Maybe the person who thought of the scheme had just come back from Brussels. Either way, it's ridiculous.
I was recently comforted by knowing how stupid criminals are. A man was walking down my road, trying to break in to cars. The police saw him, he matched a description but they didn't really have enough to take him in so he's let off. He then continues up the road and, watched by a policeman, throws a brick at a car. He was, thankfully, prosecuted for this.
Having just written this story however, it troubles me. He was spotted by a resident trying to break in to the car, who then reported it to the police. But what if you see a policeman trying to break in to a car? What are you meant to do. I'd like to think that I'd try and do something about it, but then you're at risk of assaulting a police officer, or verbally abusing one, and the fact that they were trying to break in to a car would almost certainly count for nothing, they'd prosecute you anyway. It would help their statistics.
If the police want to walk around and warm people that they're being stupid in not locking their cars up, then I suppose that's ok although they'd probably just put a CCTV camera up. But why do they need to take your possessions down to a police station? How is that of benefit to society? It seems like a waste of our time and their time. I bet there's a form to fill in as well.
Really, the Mail says it all, and I'm not even going to attempt to rival their sensationalist writing accompanied by the outrage that the police should be stopping other people breaking in to your car, not doing it themselves. Maybe the person who thought of the scheme had just come back from Brussels. Either way, it's ridiculous.
I was recently comforted by knowing how stupid criminals are. A man was walking down my road, trying to break in to cars. The police saw him, he matched a description but they didn't really have enough to take him in so he's let off. He then continues up the road and, watched by a policeman, throws a brick at a car. He was, thankfully, prosecuted for this.
Having just written this story however, it troubles me. He was spotted by a resident trying to break in to the car, who then reported it to the police. But what if you see a policeman trying to break in to a car? What are you meant to do. I'd like to think that I'd try and do something about it, but then you're at risk of assaulting a police officer, or verbally abusing one, and the fact that they were trying to break in to a car would almost certainly count for nothing, they'd prosecute you anyway. It would help their statistics.
If the police want to walk around and warm people that they're being stupid in not locking their cars up, then I suppose that's ok although they'd probably just put a CCTV camera up. But why do they need to take your possessions down to a police station? How is that of benefit to society? It seems like a waste of our time and their time. I bet there's a form to fill in as well.
Lightbulbs
The EU is a menace. An absolute menace, and while there's no point listing all the stupid, idiotic things it does and, furthermore, forces us to do today contained one of those moments when you just don't know why you bother.
Lightbulbs are to be banned. The EU is telling us what sort of lightbulbs we can have in our homes. And it's not incentivising their preferred bulb which while also ridiculous would be understandabale to a degree. Oh no. They're stopping shops from selling them. In fact, the British government is encouraging us to tell the authorities if we see a shop selling 'illegal' bulbs.
Apparently the Germans are less than impressed and are stocking up, we bought about 5 years worth of bulbs today so that we don't have to spend hundreds of pounds installing new light fittings on September 1st, and everyone should do so, although I suspect electricians are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
Why the hell should some bureaucrat in the EU tell me what sort of lightbulbs I can have in my home. If i want a big halogen sign illuminated in my living room that says 'I hate the EU' then that's fine. I pay for the energy to light it, so it's up to me. Whatever happened to personal responsibility, and freedom? When did we decide that we didn't care about these ideals anymore, that it was fine for Brussels to control the minutiae of our life. Apparently it's already happened, and it makes me worry about the future.
Update: Devil's Kitchen, having returned from holiday proves the EU are lying. Something to cheer the soul I suppose.
Lightbulbs are to be banned. The EU is telling us what sort of lightbulbs we can have in our homes. And it's not incentivising their preferred bulb which while also ridiculous would be understandabale to a degree. Oh no. They're stopping shops from selling them. In fact, the British government is encouraging us to tell the authorities if we see a shop selling 'illegal' bulbs.
Apparently the Germans are less than impressed and are stocking up, we bought about 5 years worth of bulbs today so that we don't have to spend hundreds of pounds installing new light fittings on September 1st, and everyone should do so, although I suspect electricians are rubbing their hands with glee right now.
Why the hell should some bureaucrat in the EU tell me what sort of lightbulbs I can have in my home. If i want a big halogen sign illuminated in my living room that says 'I hate the EU' then that's fine. I pay for the energy to light it, so it's up to me. Whatever happened to personal responsibility, and freedom? When did we decide that we didn't care about these ideals anymore, that it was fine for Brussels to control the minutiae of our life. Apparently it's already happened, and it makes me worry about the future.
Update: Devil's Kitchen, having returned from holiday proves the EU are lying. Something to cheer the soul I suppose.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Interesting Facts on Spying
And from a Liberal Democrat as well! I have a dissertation to write, so I'm going to assume, given he linked to the report, that the facts in Chris Huhne's article are correct. I actually have very little trouble believing them.
1) The State has sanctioned spying on 1 in every 78 adults
2) Every minute of every day, a request is made to put a citizen under surveillance for one reason or another.
3) Only 9% of surveillance undertaken actually becomes helpful in convicting someone
4) The jump in requests for surveillance rose 44% between 2006 and 2007. In that year we had the Terrorism Act, and amendment on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, the Police and Justice Act, the Religious and Racial Hatred Actand the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. It was a bad year for Civil Liberties clearly.
5) Originally only 9 organisations were allowed to request surveillance. This is now over 800, which is quite a rise.
It's actually quite scary when a concept such as Liberty, which isn't tangible, is portrayed through facts like these and we can all see the damage that has occurred.
1) The State has sanctioned spying on 1 in every 78 adults
2) Every minute of every day, a request is made to put a citizen under surveillance for one reason or another.
3) Only 9% of surveillance undertaken actually becomes helpful in convicting someone
4) The jump in requests for surveillance rose 44% between 2006 and 2007. In that year we had the Terrorism Act, and amendment on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, the Police and Justice Act, the Religious and Racial Hatred Actand the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. It was a bad year for Civil Liberties clearly.
5) Originally only 9 organisations were allowed to request surveillance. This is now over 800, which is quite a rise.
It's actually quite scary when a concept such as Liberty, which isn't tangible, is portrayed through facts like these and we can all see the damage that has occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
