Picture this...

If there was any doubt remaining that our civil liberties are under threat from Jacqui/Jacqboot Smith, the BJP has this report:

"Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the
Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of
armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members
of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police
officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking
pictures in public places."

Now, I can sort of understand taking pictures of military installations, but of a policeman, or a civil servant? It's patently ridiculous, and is potentially far reaching law that will be wide open to abuse. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile. I thnk you'll agree that "...a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism..." is pretty woolly language and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I bet HMtQ (Her Majesty the Queen, in case you've not seen that one before) will be very pleased that all those louts taking photographs of the guards at Buckingham can now all be arrested and kept at her pleasure for the next ten years. Sound crazy? Not really, she's a pretty good terrorist target. Could be a potential suicide bomber planning his attack and taking photos to figure out a way past the guards. Who knows?

This is the kind of authoritarian law you expect in a banana republic or dictatorship, not in the 'free' world, in the oldest democracy in the world. We should be free to take pictures - and journalists especially - of the police, in action or not, if for no other reason than we must be able to hold them to account.

What is lacking here is any sign of principles. It's like the fuckwits who say: "Oh, I don't mind all the extra checks at the airport, because it's for my own safety." No it fucking isn't; it primes you for further abuses of your liberty. What makes an aircraft so special? You could carry a liquid bomb onto a commuter train to far greater effect, and I don't see security checks at the train station in the morning. What happened to trust? Innocent until proven guilty? This is guilty until proven innocent, and that is incongruous with the spirit of liberty, law and democracy.

We need our leaders to stand up for the principles of liberty and say: "Yes, there is a risk that a photo could be used in a terrorist act, but we cannot and must not erode the freedoms of the people, lest we become what that against which we fight." Okay, so I'm being a bit verbose there, but I think you get the idea. The price of freedom is that sometimes people will abuse that freedom. The law is there to ensure that when people do, they are punished. This law is wrong because it assumes guilt until proven otherwise.

Calling them ZanuLab has never been more appropriate.

Hat tip to DK and Bearwatch.

Not quite so idyllic...

The maddening lunacy of students who get on a bandwagon for a ‘cause’ almost always ends in some poor sap having to deal with the fallout. In the wake of Israel’s targeted action against Hamas in Gaza, the student fury over the Eden Springs water contract has roused itself from the doldrums where it belonged.

Basically, Eden Springs UK are a subsidiary of Danone Springs of Eden, a leading water supplier in Europe. No problem so far. The complication comes here: Mayanot Eden Ltd. is an Israeli mineral water producer which operates in Europe under the Eden Springs brand. It extracts water from the Golan Heights in Israel, and this is where Palestinian Solidarity groups have taken offence. Mayanot, they claim, oppress the Palestinians and steal their water, as the Golan Heights were illegally annexed. It’s the old ‘Israel the Villain’ argument, and guess what, it’s EUSA and the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Society who are peddling it.

Some students are really good at causes. They do their research, look at all angles of an argument, reason out the good from the ill and make their stand accordingly. Others, and probably most, jump on the nearest bandwagon for the nearest underdog and shout as loud as they can, whether or not their case actually has any validity.

Which brings me to this case: Eden Springs UK does not supply you with water from the Golan Heights. Their parent company is majority owned by Group Danone with a 58% stake, not Mayanot. If you really want to dig into it, Eden Springs UK is held by Danone Springs of Eden BV (a Dutch company) which is ultimately owned by Danone SA – a French company. None of these companies have been charged or convicted of a criminal offence. Eden Springs UK are in fact a Scottish operated group – so all that EUSA/SPSS are doing is promoting the boycott of a Scottish company. Well done there!

So the sins of the father shall be visited upon the son. In this case, whether any sin has been committed at all is a matter of perspective, but let’s leave that out of it. The Golan Heights have been Israeli territory since 1981. Why penalise a UK holding of a French company for something that one of the partner organisations may or may not have done wrong?

While this has been bubbling along for a while, the Gaza conflict has once again brought it to the fore. The result of the renewed interest has been that a lot of University contract teams are under pressure from students to cancel the contract. Legally, they are under no obligation to do so, as you must have an actual, valid reason to cancel a contract. In this case, a bunch of students in a tizzy does not constitute a valid reason. Criminal conviction, breach of contract, failure to supply and so on – those would be good reasons to review the contract. If there are break clauses they may be able to exploit these, but they’d really have to ask why the heck they’d want to rather than tell the students to go forth and multiply.

EU Procurement law Vs. My taxes.

I received today an e-mail inviting me to attend a seminar on EU Procurement law. There have been rather a lot of seminars on this subject lately, but this one was going for an attention-grabber:

“The EU procurement rules are fraught with difficulty.

You are required to navigate between the black letter of the law and the commercial reality of putting together a procurement.

To manage the risk effectively you need rock-solid advice on what you can and can't do.”

It went on to list a number of the hurdles and complicated rules that can make a public sector contracting exercise something of a minefield, from when you can and cannot speak to suppliers during the process, when a framework is anti-competitive and thus non-compliant, and so on and so forth.

Normally these things get the ‘delete’ treatment without any further ado; however this framed the problem faced by contracts teams within the Public Sector very succinctly. Basically, there are so many pitfalls, red tape and ridiculous levels of bureaucracy designed at making the process as ‘fair’, ‘open’, ‘transparent’, ‘non-discriminatory’, etc, etc. as possible that it becomes an uphill struggle before you even get started.

I’m not saying that any of these goals are a bad thing. On the contrary, they are wonderful principles of a free market. Public money should be accountable, and we should not be awarding the contract to someone who isn’t going to offer the best value for money.

It’s also fucking difficult to argue against the rules. They make irritating sense to a free-marketeer. If followed, they stop protectionist policies and are intended to prevent sharp practice, all good things. In fact, you can’t even say that a public body should be able to spend its money in the local economy, because the whole point of the rules is that the best response to your tender will win the business.

In other words, if local suppliers want to win the business, then they need to up their game and improve. It also means that there should be no barrier to those local suppliers winning business elsewhere in Europe, if they decide to do so. Great, in theory.

So, does that mean I’m happy that my tax money is going to line a German, or Spanish company’s offers? Well the flipside is that their tax money could well be lining those of a British company, so you could argue that it will all come out in the wash.

What I’m trying to make clear here is that the spirit of the EU Procurement rules is something I agree with. My issue is more whether or not the sheer cost of implementing the laws, enforcing them, and even writing the damned things is actually delivering us any value for money, or if in fact is costing governments – and therefore you and me as the taxpayer – a huge amount of money that could be better off back in my pocket.

It also means that the UK Government can’t say to contracting authorities (basically a body spending public cash) that they should source locally and support the British economy. It has no say over where that public money will end up. Of course I should be happy that the most economically advantageous tender will win, therefore saving the taxpayer money. It’s very easy to end up in a circular argument on this.

When the House of Commons commissioned the construction of new offices for MPs, what was to become Portcullis House, the contract for the windows went to a British firm. The problem was that a French-owned firm, Harmon, had submitted the most economically advantageous bid. Someone at the House had decided we should buy British. Harmon challenged this under a breach of the EU Procurement rules and were awarded damages in court for £1.85m. There were other aspects they could also sue for, however the House of Commons settled out of court for an unspecified fee. So the taxpayer paid for the windows twice over, maybe more. Now, can you spell colossal waste of my fucking money?

Fine, you say, live within the rules. I question not the spirit of the rules, let me re-iterate that. What I do believe in is choice. The same choice afforded to the private sector, which has far more freedom to make decisions on where it spends its money. What I question is why that accountability seems to lie with Europe, and not with the UK taxpayer. Why the fuck are some overpaid bunch of bureaucrats allowed to tell our public sector that it can’t support local businesses if it chooses to do so? It may not be the right choice, but the point is that the public sector in the UK should be responsible to the UK taxpayer, not to fucking eurocrats.

I fail to see why we need another layer of bureaucracy on top of our own, trying to tell us what we can and can’t do – private or public sector. Big government is not a good thing. More big government above a big government is worse. We have enough crap from our own politicians, we really don’t need to be subsidising eurocrats as well, and we really don’t need more layers of red tape, processes and procedures that cost the taxpayer even more money.

Independent has some independent thinking...

Two very good articles on the Indy website today - one pointing out the spinelessness of politicians in their response to 'pakigate', the other a witty submission to the credit crisis and delusion of Flash Gordon's economic policy. Worth a read.

PC Brigade Strikes Again

The sad thing about public life is that all it takes is for one little comment to be taken out of context, and before you know it, the PC Brigade are jumping all over you demanding an apology.

My comments somehow failed to make it on to the BBC website, but it looks like my opinion was mirrored by a good many others who made their voices heard.

On one hand, I can understand how an outsider might see Harry referring to a colleague as a 'paki' could be taken as racist, except that would mean by extention that calling him a 'brit' would also be offensive. I appreciate that the word has connotations, but who gave it that connotation? Isn't not using it perpetuating the negative connotation? I mean, the gay community reclaimed gay, why can't the pakistani community reclaim 'paki'?

In context, it was more than likely being used as a nickname - call a spade a spade, right? As for raghead... well our troops are being expected to go off and shoot Afghan terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. Shooting is fine, calling them names is not, clearly.

Now if Harry meant it offensively or was bullying the lad, then I could understand the issue, however, I don't believe that in this instance he was. It's another example of the PC brigade jumping on an opportunity to get wound up over nothing and for the media to whip up a little frenzy.

Get. Over. It... and leave the poor lad alone.

You what?!

Seriously, how dumb do some people have to be?

Benecio del Toro seems to think that it's okay to support mass-murdering fuck-heads (to use Eddie Izzard's phraseology).

Further evidence that intelligence is not a prerequisite for film stars. If he was talking about Stalin or Hitler he'd be creating a PR disaster, except that the general public are blithely unaware that the bearded cigar-smoking motorcyling one was a brutal killer and enemy of freedom and liberty.

It's official: Gordon Brown is the saviour of the world (in his own mind)

Priceless.

The worst of it is that this little freudian slip is probably what he tells himself every night over prudent milk and cookies.

Even the BBC found it hard to put a pro-labour spin on this one.

1205: David Cameron starts by sending his condolences to the soldier's family. He asks how the government is going to get the banks to lend to businesses. He says Bank of England Governor Mervyn King has said recapitalisation should ensure the flow of lending returns to normal rates. Mr Cameron said on this basis the PM's plan has failed. In his reply Mr Brown says he has saved the banks, then raises laughter by accidentally saying he has "saved the world".

Flash! Ah-ah, saviour of the universe...

Public Safety Announcement

This is a public safety announcement.

If you are a pedestrian in the City of Edinburgh, this applies specifically to you. It goes for every other city too.

Please look before you cross the road. Just because you can't hear a car/bus hurtling towards you or you think that the traffic light is going to stay red long enough for you to run across the road does not mean that it is in fact safe to cross. Cyclists use the road too, and are much quieter than cars. They may also be going quite fast, and nipping past the queue of cars, because they a) can, and b) are perfectly entitled to do so. Running out between cars without thinking to check in both directions is patent stupidity at best, tantamount to suicide at worst.

If you have a death wish, please ensure that of you are going to step out gormlessly into the road, you do so in front of a bus or 4x4, and not in front of a fragile, high-speed cyclist. You will likely kill them, rather than yourself.

Pedestrian Crossings are there for a reason. Please use them, and if there is a red man, it is on for a reason.

That will be all.

ZanuLab strikes again?

Guido has unearthed something lurking in the Banking Bill that ought to raise a few concerned eyebrows.

You have to ask, why would you suddenly stop requiring the Bank of England to publish weekly reports?

Scum and villainy

This story popping up on the BBC was particularly intriguing, and I know one or two people who will be interested to read about it.

It appears that a German company has been sending a ream of letters to all and sundry demanding money for downloading porn from P2P clients, pensioners included. Quite what interest a little old lady in Bedfordshire would have in 'Young Harlots' is quite beyond me.

Actually, scratch that.

A matter of distance...

It looks like Harriet Harman can see the writing on the wall. She clumsily avoided giving any vote of support for the Speaker, Michael Martin, whose failure to stand up to police (who entered without a warrant) was compounded by a weak statement at the opening of parliament yesterday. This should hardly surprise us, after all, he lets Brown and NuLab get away with murder in the commons.

Interestingly, the focus seems to be moving away from Jacqui and Gordon. Their apparent ignorance of the plans of the Counter-Terrorist police to arrest Damian Green suggests that they are either incompetent, or liars.

Surely not?

Back to the Speaker for a moment, the Times makes a good point about the actual rights of MPs, but you might have thought that it was his duty to ask Police whether they posessed a warrant, and at least satisfy himself that their response was in proportion to the alleged offence.

The real issue at stake here is why the police suddenly felt this particular mole and MP were worth going after, and why the response was so heavy-handed. After all, Gordon Brown made boasts about his leaks for years, perhaps the Met might like to chase down some of these politicians as well?

Thieving son of a goat...

A number of blogs have been carrying banners for Axe The Beer Tax, and for good reason. If you weren't aware (and I imagine that's more than a few of you out there), 33% of the cost of a pint is tax. A THIRD. Buy three pints, and one of those was pure tax.

Not that the politicians are too worried about that.

What makes that even more hard to swallow is the other duties we pay on alcohol. As of the PBR, £1.57 of a bottle of wine in the UK is duty. That means that horrific bottle of plonk you picked up for £3.50 in the supermarket contains less than £1.93 of wine. That's before you count the costs of shipping and bottling. Spirits? On a bottle of, well, let's say Smirnoff (oddly enough, my text recognition software on my phone reads that as Poison before I get to the ff) at 37.5%, that's £6.03. Given that one can pick up a bottle of the stuff for about £15, that's about 40%.

And they think they need new laws to dissuade us from drinking?

In the beginning...

And Lo! For Basement Cat looked upon his domain, and saw that it was good.

Finally, he thought, somewhere to flounce my wit and bemoan all those whose actions and words drive me to despair. A place where I can declare my fury, express my joy... and question the integrity of those who lead our nation to the precipice of oblivion.

I say this because, quite frankly, it seems like the current government seems hell-bent on eroding our civil liberties and saddling us with a national debt that makes US Defense spending look almost reasonable. The Taxpayer's Alliance were quick to point out that the Pre-Budget Report (PBR) showed that Darling's (aka Brown's) budget was going to cost the nation more than it did to defeat the Kaiser. If you were wondering about the number, the total debt planned for the period 2009-2014 stands at £512,000,000,000,000.

Of course, the Government has a responsibility to look after the economy, and since we've all been spending too much of the money we clearly didn't have, let's solve this by encouraging people to spend even *more* money! It's bombproof! And since we're short of cash as it is, let's lower VAT to get them out spending (2.5%, I'm touched, Gordon, really), ignoring the cost of change to the retailers, plus failing to mention that we plan on hiking it to 18.5% next year. For crying out loud... If you think you can spin that to show how it benefits businesses you're forgetting that fundamental flaw in your plan - Businesses claim VAT back anyway.

At this point I should add that I know this is all old news in blog terms. The PBR was last week and the VAT slash took place on Monday. Apologies, I'm playing catch-up.

Funnily enough, I had a sneaking suspicion that the VAT cut might be politically motivated (Never! I hear you cry), because NuLab are desperately in need of some popular politics right now. The announcement of a 2.5% reduction could have a number of effects - after all, if you knew that the £1000 shiny new Television that Gordon really wants you to buy would suddenly cost you only £948.75 if you held off your purchase til December, you might be tempted to hang on a week or two. Replicate that logical decision across the nation, and November will be a dire month for retailers (if it wasn't already). December, on the other hand, should see a surge of delayed purchases PLUS the general Christmas rush, allowing Comrade Brown to declare to the public 'Look, my plan worked!'. Once you factor in the demise of Woolworths and the fire sales to follow, sparking a brutal throat-slashing extravaganza between retailers on the High Street and beyond, I have little doubt that December will see a big boost in sales, if not so much in profits.

Yesterday's Scotsman (Hootsmon to those who know) led with a front page story on the success of the 2.5% rate cut bringing hapless shoppers out into the street. Really? Wasn't just because Christmas is coming soon? Wasn't anything to do with the massive reductions on the High Street that make the 2.5% cut utterly irrelevant?

Teh econumi. Ur doin' it wrong.