Just wondering...

Over at EUReferendum, on the eve of The Budget, Richard's frustration is particularly evident and his dire predictions of bloody revolution becoming ever more bloody... [Emphasis mine.]

The average British household has seen its real-terms income fall by £365 in the worst three-year squeeze since the early 1980s, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, dragging it down 1.6 percent since 2008. During the previous half-century, the average income had risen by 1.6 percent each year.

Against that, inflation is up to 4.4 percent, taxes are up, and are set to increase further with today's budget, as Government finances continue to spiral out of control.

This is balanced by reduced entitlements, poorer services, increased charges and public sector fees – all the while the ruling classes continue to pay themselves more and better salaries and pensions, while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

This, it seems, it just the time to embark on a foreign adventure, to keep the minds of the plebs focused on the bread and circuses – except that most people aren't buying it. They are deeply suspicious of the cost and alarmed at the evidence that the Boy doesn't actually know what he is doing.

This is getting close to the stuff of revolution. We are not there yet, but each of these developments brings us a step further down this perilous road, from which there is no turning back once the destination is reached.

Maybe so and I have often, in the past, yelled loudly for British citizens to man the barricades!

But I am troubled by just one question should this unhappy situation ever arise...

Tell me—who will rush to enforce a no-fly zone in Britain when the government turns its guns on us...?

Japanese nuclear power-plants: an accurate assessment

A nuclear reactor: now you can build your own...

Via EUReferendum, I have read—with great interest—this article on the situation surrounding the Fukushima nuclear incident.

Whilst media outlets, such as the BBC, have been amplifying the dangers (whilst simultaneously appearing to downplay them) the simple fact is that, according to the linked article, there really is no risk.

The article is written by Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston: he is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry. As such, Oehmen can be taken as a rather more authoritative source than, for instance, the BBC's Roger Black; I have been unable to find a biography for the latter but, given the lack of scientific qualifications in the rest of the BBC's environmental team, I think that we can assume that Oehmen is rather more believable than Black.

Anyway, the whole article is utterly fascinating—laying out, as it does, not only what happened in Japan but also describing, in detail, exactly how a nuclear plant of the light water design actually operates.

So, I recommend that you read it all—I will simply leave you with Oehmen's conclusions:

• The plant is safe now and will stay safe.


• Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.


• Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.


• There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.


• The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.


• The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water


• The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.


• Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.


• The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)


• I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. That will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to potential power shortages during peak demand, in Japan.

If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites:

• http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html


• http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/


• http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-power-stations-in-japan/

As Oehmen points out, he has published this in order to provide an accurate portrayal of the situation—something that he has not seen, and you will not see, in the hysterical articles written by the under-qualified hacks of the MSM.

Dodgy ground

Beth Stratford: a complete and utter watermelon moron. Oh, and violent criminal...

This article by a fucking eco-loon called Beth Stratford—who, with her buddies, held up a coal-train bound for a powerstation—is a massive load whining, self-righteous, ignorant, self-justifying crap. No change there then.

Luckily, I don't have to delve into the guts of this awful, mewling pap as Longrider has effectively disembowelled the bloody thing, at length.

Just a couple of questions though: first, why—when the Greenpeace fucknuts who caused £30,000 of damage at a powerstation were found not guilty because of the justification of the damage from climate change—was this argument not accepted in the case of the Drax train defendants?

(Don't get me wrong: I think that it is a shit defence that should not be accepted in any way, but why the inconsistency?)

The second question that I like to ask is this: the going rate for a CiF article is £75—was this paid to Stratford? Because—and feel free to say I'm wrong here—I was under the impression that criminals were not allowed to profit from their crimes.

Given that Stratford has been convicted, and the article has only been written because she committed a crime, were she to accept payment, Stratford is quite obviously profiting from crime—as is Comment Is Free.

I think we should be told.

And, if Stratford has been paid, then the money should be confiscated; and then both she and CiF should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

Now, that would be funny...

Not content with bringing our Parliament into disrepute, now—through ignorance—they would destroy it

So, the dust has settled on the expenses affair and our elected representatives have been found sorely lacking. MPs have raped and pillaged the expenses system, using our money not only to fund their lavish lifestyles but also to exempt themselves from the laws that they impose on us—most notably ensuring that they need pay no tax on benefits-in-kind (for many of these claims were not expenses at all, but benefits that, for anyone else, would have been taxable).

However, with truly astonishing stupidity, these venal idiots have come up with a set of solutions that are worse than the original problem. After all, fixing the expenses system would not have been difficult: forcing the annual publishing of all (unredacted) receipts, removing the benefits-in-kind tax exemption and allowing the recall of any MP by his or her constituents would have gone a long way to sort out even the perception of wrong-doing—let alone the ability to get away with it.

But no: the government has decided that they need yet another stupid, expensive and unaccountable QUANGO to ensure that our lords and masters can keep their pudgy, grasping little hands out of the cookie jar.

Your humble Devil opposed this from the outset—if only because it would potentially stop us being able to obtain the details of the expenses under FoI. Besides, if our 646 MPs are unable to manage themselves, then what possible moral (or practical) justification can they put forward for attempting to manage 60 million of us?

None.

However, it gets worse, as Raedwald pointed out, having examined the text of the proposed Bill.

Make no mistake. This is an anti-democratic, pernicious and malign little Bill. Consider this provision;

• An order under this section may provide .. for specified property, rights and liabilities which subsist wholly or mainly for the purposes of the House of Commons to be transferred to the IPSA by a scheme

You see, Brown's new Quango doesn't merely check MPs' claims—it pays them. Rather than Parliament owning its own pay chest and being its own master, MPs will now be employed by the government. Brown has taken Parliament's resources from them. And who decides just how much of Parliament's property, rights and liabilities are to be transferred to the government? Why, a government minister, of course! With the complicity of Brown's Speaker, Mr Bercow;

• A scheme made by virtue of subsection (8) is to be made by a Minister of the Crown with the consent of the person who chairs the House of Commons Commission.

The last thing this nation needs is an Act that would pack the chamber with vile apparatchiks and 'professional' politicians, rob the Commons of its authority, turn our parliament into just a department of government and treat our MPs—returned by us to Parliament to exercise the thunderous powers and sovereignty of that body—as mere hirelings, irrelevant juniors.

As distasteful as we may find the corrupt and venal behaviour of the 646 bastards within the House of Commons, we should not confuse or conflate these odious people with Parliament itself. And what this Bill proposes to do is to make Parliament the servant of the government—to make the entirety of Parliament subservient to the Executive.

This is incredibly dangerous; part of the problem with governments over the last few decades is that they have increasingly come to see themselves as the masters of this country—the supreme power over you and I.

What many bloggers have campaigned for is a return to the situation wherein we, the people, wield the power in this country, and wherein MPs acknowledge that we only lend them our power for a short term. And, yes, we were gleeful at the expenses scandals because we thought that the power of the people might be reasserted over a chastened Parliament.

This Bill proposes the very opposite.

Ineffective though the House has been at holding the Executive to account, it was at least able to do it in small respects—especially as the power of this government has waned.

This Bill would remove even that check on an over-weaning Executive, and it most certainly returns no power to us. Indeed, as EUReferendum notes in a comment on Raedwald's post, it does the very opposite.

Such is the sagging morale of our MPs, and their slender grasp of constitutional and democratic principles, that they look to approving this with minimal debate and scrutiny, intent only on "restoring public confidence" in Parliament. Not for them the lesson of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the classic illustration of the principle that rushed law is always bad law.

As to The Telegraph's concerns about inhibiting high-quality people from standing for Parliament, the main deterrent is the singular fact that, progressively, this institution has been robbed of its powers (with the willing assent of its incumbents). Yet this Bill seeks to neuter Parliament even further, continuing its march towards irrelevance.

What is lost here is the very rationale for having Parliament in the first place. It does not belong to the MPs, or government. It is—or should be—our Parliament, there as a bastion against an over-powerful and oppressive executive. Anything that diminishes Parliament diminishes us.

Having lost the plot so long ago, however, our MPs are now conspiring in destroying what little authority they have left. But while they act in haste, we will be the ones to repent at leisure.

I have argued for sometime that Parliament has been giving away powers—to the European Union—that it has no entitlement to: the power is, I repeated many times, lent to them for a period no longer than five years—at the end of which, it must be returned.

Once again, it seems that MPs simply do not get it: yes, they have behaved disgracefully, and they should feel suitably ashamed. Yes, many of them should resign—and some already have.

However, this Bill will not make amends—this Bill will not fix the system. Indeed, it is more akin to them—having been found with their hands in the till—murdering the shopkeeper and burning down the store.

All is not lost, however: as The Sunday Times reports, some MPs seem to have realised the enormity of this desecration and strapped on some testicles.

GORDON BROWN’S plans to create a legally enforceable “code of conduct” for MPs are in turmoil as MPs and peers prepare to reject the scheme.

At least four senior MPs are to table amendments to water down or remove the proposals from the Parliamentary Standards Bill, which is going through the Commons this week.

They include Sir Stuart Bell, the Labour MP on the Commons Commission; Sir George Young, who chairs the committee on standards and privileges; and Alan Duncan, the shadow leader of the Commons. The House of Lords has also threatened to throw out the scheme.

It has emerged that neither Jack Straw, the justice secretary, who is charged with pushing through the legislation, nor Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons,who unveiled the bill last week, knew about the plans for a code of conduct until they were announced by No 10 in The Sunday Times. Whitehall officials drew up new clauses to “fit the press release”.

The wording of the proposed law leaves it open to individuals to take parliament, or MPs, to court. Malcolm Jack, the most senior Commons official, has warned of “litigants trying to make a point”.

Another key section of the bill raises the prospect that the words of MPs, evidence given by witnesses to select committees and other Commons business, could be used as evidence in criminal proceedings, which would undermine the tradition of free speech under “parliamentary privilege”.

Again, via EUReferendum, it seems that the danger is so severe that Mystic Mogg has been coaxed out of his box to bend his great mind to producing a stern warning.

The House of Commons is in danger of cutting its own constitutional throat, but the Clerk of the House is trying to stop them. The clerk is Malcolm Jack, a man of scholarship and courage who is the ultimate referee on all constitutional questions which affect the Commons. His core duty is to advise the House, its Speaker, the committees and MPs on the practice and procedure of the House, and its rights.

Last Friday Dr Jack sent a memorandum to the Standards Committee on the “Privilege Aspects of the Parliamentary Standards Bill”. He gives a serious warning about particular aspects of the Bill, which is expected to be rushed through both Houses of Parliament before the summer recess. The Lords is due to rise on July 21, so time would be very limited. Rushed legislation is usually a disaster, and this would be legislation in a panic.

No shit. The article is well worth reading in full, as Mystic outlines the main concerns with the Bill, and Dr Jack's pedigree and position. But his conclusion is spot on.

The morale of the Commons has of course been shaken by the expenses scandal. I have never seen a comparable loss of confidence. Any healthy institution wants to extend its own authority. The Parliamentary Standards Bill is seeking to deal with a problem which is only too real. Yet the remedy which has been proposed is to reduce the existing rights and functions of the House of Commons, including self-regulation. This is a move in the wrong direction. If the Commons cannot restore its reputation by doing its job better, it will certainly not do so by demonstrating its lack of confidence in its own authority.

The new Bill proposes to create a regulator — the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority — to be called “Ipsa”, which will act as an independent authority for disciplining Parliament. No one in his or her right mind would contemplate joining such a preposterous body, which will start with no authority and is likely to be abolished as soon as anyone finds out that it has been built on sand. Quangos are always vulnerable: they have too many enemies and hardly any friends. They are appointed by politicians to suit their self-interest.

The Clerk of the House should be trusted, partly because he is the 50th in his line, of whom the first was appointed in 1363. If Ipsa is now appointed by Gordon Brown in 2009, it will be lucky to survive through 2010. Britain needs a strong and independent and new House of Commons, which would mean an early election; no one needs an ipsy-dipsy quango.

Quite so. Not only are QUANGOs subject to cronyism and manipulation by higher powers—in this case, the government—but they are democratically unaccountable and that is precisely what is not required in this case.

We need more information published on the internet—with scrutiny being driven by bloggers, if necessary. And, crucially, we need a channel to be able to do something about any abuses that we find—such as the ability to recall MPs.

After all, have politicians not bemoaned the lack of public engagement? This apathy is caused—I, and others like me, believe—by the sense that we can never find out what these bastards are up to and, even if we could, there is nothing that we can do about it.

The publication of documents—such as department spending and MPs' expenses—would give people the opportunity to find out precisely where their money is going; the ability to recall MPs would give the people of this country the sense that they are able to ensure that our politicians are made accountable for their actions.

With a few simple strokes, we can go some way to making our politicians more honest, less proligate and less wasteful and we can re-engage the voters in the politics of this country.

Instead what they have presented us with is something that Raedwald quite rightly terms a Bill that...

... treats us all like fools and is as insulting as a gob of spittle in the face for the voters of Britain.

Well, seriously: what did you expect from the Cyclopean Gobblin' King?

The man has got to go, and so has this government; most of the rest of the MPs have proven themselves untrustworthy and stupid—at best. The only solution is an immediate General Election.

And how shall we force that...?

Banning websites

To get a flavour of the kind of disgusting little people that we libertarians are up against, why not have a look at this post from a... er... gentleman who tried to have the UK Libertarian Party website banned in the Netherlands (a tip of the horns to Bella).

I have asked the Netherlands Interior Ministry to censor the website of the United Kingdom Libertarian Party, www.lpuk.org, and the party's blog at lpuk.blogspot.com. The website is registered to the party's leader Patrick Vessey. The censorship is partial: I asked the ministry to add the sites to the national police blacklist. That means they would be blocked by several providers, including the largest in the Netherlands.

And on what grounds has "Paul" got for trying to block these sites?

The request is based on the central defects of libertarianism, which it got from its parent ideology liberalism. Primarily, the claim of absolute truth and universal validity for their own values, and the conviction that they are morally entitled to enforce these on others, against their will, and by force if necessary. Specifically, the request gives as grounds for prohibition of the website, that

1. the United Kingdom Libertarian Party presents libertarian values, including an absolute ownership right, as if they were an absolute truth.


2. the party seeks to subject others, against their will, to a libertarian society and to libertarian values.


3. the party openly advocates a "libertarian government" that would rule over non-libertarians, and subject them against their will to libertarian policies, using the powers of the state.


4. the party seeks to deliberately harm others, by depriving them (against their will) of the protection of the state, for instance by the abolition of minimum wages


5. the party is reactionary, and its goal is a harsh Victorian society, where the poor are dependent on private charity


6. it advocates a return to the gold standard


7. the party advocates the maintenance of a national state, and of national sovereignty


8. it advocates the detention of asylum seekers.

From this list of reasons—many of which apply to any political party, including those in the Netherlands—one can only conclude that Paul is, in fact, quite insane.

I particularly like the bit about LPUK's "goal" being "a harsh Victorian society, where the poor are dependent on private charity", although I cannot see why that is grounds for attempting to get a website blocked. It's also somewhat amusing to see LPUK—a party whose policies some write off as being too radical—described as "reactionary".

And since when was it wrong to "advocate the maintenance of a national state, and of national sovereignty"? I mean, national states actually exist: wouldn't it be weirder if we were advocating none?

Anyway, it's when Paul tries to justify his application for censorship with a free speech argument that he gets really silly.

There is no reason why I should not seek to block or close a website on the grounds of its content. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to advocate and seek censorship.

Um... Sure. But once that censorship is imposed, then freedom of speech no longer exists: and if we are going to try to pursue this silly argument, then the application to apply for censorship on the grounds of free speech also no longer exists.

The formal rights to free expression in constitutions and treaties - for example article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - are directed at states, not at individuals. Laws, not constitutions, are directed at individuals, and there is no law that prohibits me from seeking censorship in any form.

Well, you see, Paul, you are applying for the government, i.e. a state, to use its power to enforce the censorship of a website that breaks no laws. As such, you are, in fact, inciting a state to use its power to break the ECHR conditions that it has signed up to. Do you see?

Whilst there may be no problem with you, as an individual, applying for censorship of certain websites, you, as an individual, would have no power to ensure that said censorship takes place, i.e. you require the state to ensure that certain carriers prevent other users from accessing the websites. And, as such, there is a problem: the state is using its monopoly legal power to block said websites when no crime has been committed.

Politically, there is also no reason why I should refrain from seeking state-enforced prohibition, when others do it all the time.

Lordy. If we are going for a tit-for-tat argument, how about this one: throughout history, many political regimes have murdered thousands upon thousands—even millions upon millions—of their own citizens; in fact, throughout the world, there are governments beating up, starving and killing their own citizens—governments do it all the time. So, Paul can have no objection—were I a ruler of a country—to me enslaving, murdering and torturing thousands of my citizens "when others do it all the time".

And given that this is the case, and to further illustrate what a moronic line of argument this is, one could thus say that Paul is openly advocating torture, slavery and murder on a grand scale. Perhaps I should apply to have his website blocked?

But it gets even sillier...

If the United Kingdom Libertarian Party hosted child porn on their website, and if I complained about that content, and if the UK police and providers blocked access, then how many people would object? Would it get any attention from third parties, or from anti-censorship campaigns? I doubt it. So what is the difference if I complain about its libertarian content, and try to get that blocked?

The difference, Paul, is that the creation and dissemination of child pornography is illegal—not just in this country, but pretty much universally. Libertarianism, or the advocacy of libertarianism, is not illegal (yet).

Luckily, the Dutch government is not stupid and rejected Paul's lunatic application in short order. I like to think of the official in question looking at the application, and giving a little sigh as he shakes his head in weary incredulity.

Unfortunately, nutjobs like Paul never give up—they just move onto another target...

I have asked the Netherlands Interior Ministry to censor the website of the Adam Smith Institute, www.adamsmith.org.

What the good citizens of the Netherlands think of Paul's solicitous actions on their behalf is not, alas, recorded. However, I do think it worth pointing out to said citizens that Paul has taken it upon himself to decide what you, the citizens of the Netherlands, are adult enough to handle: in short, he is accusing you all of being stupid and immature.

In other words, my Dutch friends, Paul, like any good dictator, has taken it upon himself to decide what is best for you because Paul believes that he is cleverer than you. Paul believes that he knows how you should run your life better than you do.

And that, my friends, is why I loathe socialists.

Flattening the laws of England...

My colleague was rightfully incensed at—and disbelieving of—Harridan Harperson's casual talk of over-turning contract law in respect of Fred the Shred's pension. But then, as Timmy pointed out a week or so ago, the government have already done it once.

Changing the rules in mid game….or, if you prefer, violating the law of contract.

Bondholders, who have £12bn in Northern Rock, have been spooked because the Government tore up the rule book on traded debt on Friday by unilaterally rewriting creditor contracts with Bradford & Bingley to delay payment of both interest and capital. Following the B&B; intervention, spreads in the sub-debt market jumped 100 basis points to 3.3pc.

One senior credit market analyst said: "Changing the documentation on a whim is not a good sign … It has thrown the whole sub-debt market into disarray."

The analyst added that Northern Rock’s bondholders are now worried that the Government will "amend the terms of the bonds so it can miss coupon payments or link payments to bad assets".

If it does: "The Government could kill confidence in the bond market as well as the equity market, which would be disastrous for fundraisings."

Now yes, we all know that those bondholders would be losing money if Northern Rock or B&B; had been allowed to go bust rather than being nationalised. But that is already part of the rules of the game.

If you decide to unilaterally change the contracts, well, OK, so you’ve changed it just for one certain group of people. But you’ve shown that you’re willing to do it to anyone, anytime.

Seriously, what the fuck are this bunch of clowns playing at? What. The. Fuck?

These silly cunts are simply making the whole crisis worse. After all, what is the result of this particular unilateral fucking of the law?

Which means that all transactions now become more expensive as everyone has to price that risk in.

So, as in this case, all borrowing by all banks has just become more expensive. Pretty good for a day’s work, eh?

Are they completely insane?

Let us hope not, but it may be a forlorn hope. Rumours are circulating of plans to deploy the army onto the streets...

In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to 'open fire' on UK citizens during civil disturbances.

I found this long and extracted conversation to be both bizarre and frightening. I will state at this point that he is someone that I have known for years, and trust implicitly. The fact that service personnel are actually being asked in special briefing sessions whether they would fire on their own nationals indicates that the rumours about the Army being put on standby are indeed very true.

As if to add weight to this, it was reported yesterday as a tag on a posting about UKIP by Richard North on EUReferendum that plans for Army involvement were well advanced...

Of course, now that it is illegal to take a picture of a policeman or military personnel if those involved happen to decide that it is (punishable by a fine and up to ten years in jug), don't expect to see too many pictures of said thugs kicking the shit out of protestors.

But, whilst the government gears up for the riots, they will also be gearing up to use the Civil Contingencies Act [PDF]—which will plunge us into an official dictatorship. Samizdata published the details back in 2004.

Envisaged, ostensibly, as a means of giving the government sufficient emergency powers to deal with terrorist threats (as if they do not already have enough powers), the actuality is a lot darker and goes a great deal further than that.

The effect of the Bill, once passed into law, will enable any senior government minister to delcare that an 'emergency' has happened or is about to happen and, entirely at his own discretion, enact any regulations he wishes for the purpose of:

• protecting human life, health or safety


• treating human illness or injury


• protecting or restoring property


• protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel


• protecting or restoring an electronic or other system of communication


• protecting or restoring facilities for transport


• protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health


• protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions


• preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air


• preventing, or mitigating the effects of, flooding


• preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life


• protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government


• protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or


• protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

In other words, regulations for any purpose whatsoever.

And that is just the beginning. The Bill goes on to set out just what those ministerial fiats can do:

• provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);


• provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);


• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;


• require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;


• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;


• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;


• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;

The Bill will also enable said minister to abolish any law or statute at the stroke of a pen.

These are Bolshevik-style powers, so sweeping and totalitarian that they sound as if they have been lifted out of some 1930's banana-republic manifesto.

The effect (and almost certainly the intention) of these laws will be to give the Executive complete political control over the country. Bloggers or media owners who oppose the government can have their businesses requistioned and shut down. Political opponents can be put under indefinite house arrest or dragged before kangaroo courts. Meetings or organised protests can be disbanded and, theoretically at least, the Executive could even order Parliament (which is an assembly) to be evacuated and closed.

Under the rubric of 'terrorist threats' the Executive is about to equip itself with awesome and unlimited powers and let no-one delude themselves that these powers will not be used against, say, pro-hunt campaigners, petrol protestors and maybe even Samizdatistas. The Nulabour fantasy of complete control is shortly to be made flesh.

This is probably the last year of Britain as a liberal democracy yet the mainstream media is (as usual) asleep at the wheel. They will remain that way. It is up to bloggers to raise the awareness and ring the alarm bells in the hope that some opposition can be stirred into life.

Leg-Iron sums up the potential situation very well...

No sense at all, apart from that Civil Contingencies bill, Labour's Enabling Act. It's gathering dust and the Gorgon is itching to play with it. Once he has that under way, no more elections, no more tedious discussion in Parliament and no more irritating democracy. The Gorgon will no longer need even the Labour party. He can just do what the hell he likes and there is then nothing more we can do about it.

He can't just set it in motion. He needs our help to do that.

He needs a riot. Preferably more than one, preferably in different cities. Down comes the already-suggested curfew laws, food rationing because we've already been told we're all obese, huge taxes on booze and cigarettes (for health reasons) huge taxes on gas, electricity and petrol (to save the sparrows) monitoring of all travel and communication (because there might still be 'activists' out there plotting to kill us all) monitoring of all spending (in case someone's stocking up on explosives) rewards for shopping thought criminals, compulsory identity papers and cameras, cameras everywhere. For our protection. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, will be the new Slogan for Britain.

This used to be the sole preserve of the tinfoil hat brigade. I wish I'd listened to them sooner because now, most of that list is in place already. All that's needed is activation of the Civil Contingencies act and it's complete. He has a little over a year to provoke those riots. It's going to get pretty surreal in the coming months. But we have to grit our teeth and face him down.

If we don't riot, Labour are likely to be obliterated in a general election.

If we riot, there won't be one.

I really, really hope that I am being paranoid. But should the Civil Contingencies Bill be invoked, I shall be less than surprised. And maybe even your humble Devil will stir from behind his keyboard, put aside his fine words and prepared speeches, and join the fighters at the barricades.

Because, should that come to pass and with the prison-camps beckoning, there will be nothing left to lose...

Big boys' toys

Whilst Timmy feels that he doesn't even have to make the quite valid point about correlation and causation between handguns and murder rates—although a CiF commenter named bannedbycastro happily spells it out—I wish to pick up the last paragraph of this immensely patronising article by Alex Hannaford.

Although I sympathise with Stollenwerk that the law needs clarifying, I think if people must play with big boys' toys, they should do so at a firing range or otherwise keep them under lock and key.

In which case, Alex dearest, the guns are of absolutely fuck all use in defending oneself, wouldn't you agree? I know that you are English and probably a bit dim, but how about thinking outside your somewhat pusillanimous box for a second?

Of course, if you would prefer that your friend was raped (for the lack of any defence) because her gun made you feel uncomfortable, why not just tell her that?—I am sure that both her and her gun would not trouble you again.

If our friend had turned up and put her Glock on the kitchen counter while she enjoyed dinner, I think I would have been more than a little nervous – particularly if I'd said something to offend her.

Because, of course, anyone who owns a gun is just itching to shoot someone with it, aren't they? Although, if you are as fucking annoying in person as you come across in this article, Alex, I can understand your trepidation...

Murphy's Law #10: the evil that the Devil does...

It seems that Richard Murphy's commenters are getting more and more extreme...

There is a strand of thinking running amongst some of your correspondents that confuses liberty with licence. Freedom of expression does not always require that we must endure the type of hyper-aggressive abuse that you have been subjected to in recent days. It happens that my mother is German - of Jewish family - and she grew up in Berlin during the inter-war years. She witnessed exactly the same patterns of abuse - used systematically as a tool for intimidation and subjugation by the thugs of the far-right - and the tactic proved vary effective since ordinary people withdrew from the political space of the centre left and centre right because it was made frankly too unpleasant and scary. Only the most courageous were prepared to take a stand, and they were physically beaten up and worse for their troubles.

The language employed by some of your detractors, the Devil’s Kitchen blog providing extreme examples, is appalling, and to justify this in the name of free speech is pure humbug. This is no more nor less than an attempt to intimidate you. Full marks to you for standing your ground and retaining your dignity.

Yup, that's right: being angry and sweary on a blog that you don't have to read is, in fact, analogous to the repression practised by the Nazis. As Timmy says, ain't this the Godwin's to end all Godwins...?

Yes, really, the Devil ‘effin’ and blindin’. Obnoxio and his potty mouth, this is indeed the same as the Nazis and their suppression of public debate.

I think we might need to retire Godwin’s Law now, eh?

Maybe I should join in and say that Richard Murphy's moderation of comments is absolutely analogous to the suppression of free speech practised by the Nazis, eh? Or rather, given the man's leanings, that of Stalin's Communist Party.

Or maybe we could all calm down and point out that Richard Murphy is still a know-nothing fuckwit who simply can't take robust criticism of the reams of utter shite that he publishes. And, of course, that his commenters are hysterical loons...

P.S. For your delectation, here's some more Turd Sandwich from The Kitchen archives...

PREVIOUS INSTALLMENTS OF MURPHY'S LAW

1. Murphy's Law #1


2. Murphy's Law #2


3. Murphy's Law #3


4. Murphy's Law #4


5. Murphy's Law #5


6. Murphy's Law #6


7. Murphy's Law #7


8. Murphy's Law #8


9. Murphy's Law #9

Enjoy the wisdom of Richard Murphy in bite-sized chunks! And then realise that he influences government policy! And then blow chunks...!

UPDATE: I enjoyed this comment by Smigeon, over at Timmy's place...

They don’t like it when their own tactics are applied to them, do they? For 40 years, starting in the late 60’s, the left has been shouting down anyone who thinks differently, heaping abuse and ridicule on them, making out that they are morally bereft, and generally making anyone who holds right-wing views feel beleaguered and harrassed in such a way that they think twice about expressing their views in public.

So now a few obscure bloggers start applying that treatment back to the left, and the left immediately goes crying that they need government protection. Well, fuck you, you fascists — have a taste of your own medicine.

Quite.

Murphy's Law #9: Tim Worstall is the Devil

Tim Worstall is going to eat your babies, and your kittens. Or at least that's pretty much what the disgusting, socialist moron, Richard Murphy, seems to think.

Tim is a clever chap, I will not dispute it. There is, however, something very unpleasant about his methods. He tries to engage as a reasonable person on this blog, and then goes back to his own blog, hurls abuse and waits for his sycophants to come back with ad hominem, crude and sometimes blatantly inappropriate comments, all of which, I am sure, fuel his ego, but more sinisterly, fit into a pattern of political behaviour most commonly associated with the far right. The BNP work in this way, for example. I’m not suggesting Tim has anything to do with them, or their racist opinion, but Nick Griffin also seeks to appear reasonable in public debate, but relies upon working his audience of thugs behind-the-scenes and in his own domain to secure his support.

The object of the aggression ( and it is much worse on some other sites whose authors have chosen to comment here in the past) is simple. It is to frighten people away from the debate to secure the space for the far right. This is the work of extremists.

I seek to work in the mainstream. No one in the mainstream would allow the type of comment, attack, or abuse that Tim Worstall allows onto his blog. As a result I am satisfied that he is an extremist working outside the mainstream of UK politics, but who has intention to undermine it.

It is why I have decided to ignore his comments from now on. It is why the mainstream needs to eliminate this type of attack, which also seeks to suppress debate on sites such as the Guardian’s comment is free, if only by overwhelmingly out-posting these people, and it is why we need to name the likes of Tim Worstall for the extremists they are.

No doubt Tim will have a lot of fun abusing this. I can live with that. Someone has to name him (and his like) as a threat to democratic debate. I do.

Poor, poor Richard. I would say that he has lost his fucking marbles but, let's face it, he lost them ages ago. Still, that's socialists for you: once they've lost the debate, they just stick their fingers in their ears and shout, "la la la la la". For Tim to be called an extremist by someone like Richard Murphy is, I imagine, a badge of pride.

Motorbikes: an ongoing saga

The Longrider comments on the latest load of bansturbatory bullshit from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

ACPO has recently submitted a report to the transport select committee seeking motorcycles to be banned from certain areas under the banner of road safety.

Now, you might ask, what ACPO thinks it is doing getting involved in the lawmaking process; after all the police are there to uphold law, not create it. I could understand if their advice was sought regarding the policing of a proposal should it become law, but otherwise, I would expect them to shut up and do the job for which we pay them, that is; policing by consent of the electorate.

Well, I hate to say that I told you so but I did, back in February, when I quoted this article.

Motorbikes should be banned as part of a plan to eliminate road deaths, a safety expert has claimed.

The goal of stopping deaths on the roads has been set by a number of countries including Norway, Australia and Sweden, where the programme has been called “Vision Zero”.

But Norwegian safety expert Rune Elvik said for it to happen, policy makers should consider the radical step of banning motorbikes.

“If they are serious about these lofty road safety ambitions that have been announced then I think such a discussion is needed,” he said in an interview with Motor Cycle News.

“Motorcycling would definitely not be allowed.”

Your humble Devil's attention was drawn to this article by one of his mole's in the European Commission, who pointed out the EU was very interested in Vision 0.

CARS 21 is an EU Commission initiative and, according to my informant, that same Commission is very interested in adopting the Swedish Vision 0 for itself.

But this is a laudable aim, is it not? Well, yes and no because, you see, the EU Commission does not have a "stop" switch, nor even a "this is a fucking stupid idea" warning light; would that they did. And it is relevant because road safety is entirely in the hands of the Commission: the British government no longer has primacy over our road safety laws.

And my mole reliably informs me that the Commission has seized upon the idea that it is human error that causes accidents; thus, they have reasoned, the best way to remove human error would be to automate the driving process. As such, they have been looking at ways of doing this—and it could be integrated with the Galileo project too.

Unfortunately, there is a little fly in this ointment: although the Commission have decided that it would be relatively easy to automate car driving, it would be near impossible to automate the driving of another type of vehicle.

Motorbikes.

And so it is hardly surprising that ACPO should be proposing a very similar measure, for this is how the EU works. A little lobbying here, a little lobbying there; some pressure brought to bear here, threats of funding withdrawal there: it's the same old game over and over again.

Now, does anyone happen to know if ACPO has received any EU funding? Unfortunately, one cannot submit an FoI request because ACPO are exempt.

ACPO is a private company and the Office of the Information Commissioner has confirmed that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the Association, since Schedule 1 of the Act does not include a definition which covers ACPO.

If ACPO is a private company (which it is) who funds it? Who are the directors? Where do any profits go? Can anyone with access to Companies House find me ACPO's accounts for the last few years?

Because I have a bet on with myself that you will find that there is some EU funding on their accounts; other than that, I am also willing to bet that numerous police forces receive either direct or indirect funding from the EU.

Come in, motorcyclists: your number's up...

Why drink is seen as "the demon drink"...

It's all so obvious, really, once you read Nightjack's lexicon of how to ensure that you walk away scot-free from any police station or criminal action.

Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

Then having accepted this, and duly logged said drink problem in the crime book, the CPS pass the evidence onto the state so that the government can conclude that everyone is fundamentally decent and would do nowt wrong were it not for the evils of booze.

And so whatever bunch of fucking shysters are in government at the time can conclude that the only way to cut crime is to ensure that nobody—apart from the massively-subsidised shysters themselves—can afford to buy drink.

Fucking hellski.

Feeling secure yet...?

I am a bit late with this, but blogging time has been a bit restricted of late. But, anyway, as we all know, any computer system can be hacked but why bother when you can simply subvert the existing system, eh?

An investigation has been launched by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) after The Mail on Sunday revealed that motorists’ names and addresses were sold to a convicted fraudster and a wheel-clamper whose offices have been raided by police.

The move came after this newspaper highlighted a loophole that allows parking and clamping firms virtually unrestricted access to the DVLA database of Britain’s 38million motorists.

By applying for driver details by post - using a one-page form downloaded from the internet - private operators are able to bypass criminal record checks and other vetting procedures.

Obviously, I would draw some parallels with the ID Cards and database state in general, but I am absolutely confident that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

I know, because Jacqui told me so.

Cheating is still bad, even when it's not done by the government

This is by PDF, absolutely not DK, usual disclaimers apply

When I first read about Damian Green's arrest, I felt a bit concerned about what the flaming fuck the government was up to [*]. While locking up the Sarah Tisdalls and Clive Pontings has been standard practice forever, the leak recipients aren't supposed to be part of the deal. At least, as long as they grass out the leakers (hello, Peter Preston; how's 'not being in jail' working out for you? Shame Ms Tisdall can't say the same, eh? And no, that's not entirely fair).

But now the details have come out about what was actually going on in this case, it turns out that Mr Green was controlling a spy in the civil service, who was deliberately, regularly, stealing confidential information and passing it to Mr Green for political advantage.

That isn't 'civil servant spots badness going on and blows whistle to sympathetic ear', that's 'completely unacceptable conspiracy for which people should, if not go to jail, certainly be fired'. And anyone who thinks that the government are the ones in the wrong here should be shot in the eyes for partisan idiocy.

I hope this was a solo act by Mr Green. Because if Mr Cameron and the wider party organisation were involved, then it becomes a violation of the political neutrality of the Civil Service. Which is about a thousand times more important, in terms of guarding our freedoms, as whether people who commit crimes should be arrested (answer: yes, they should. Even though they're nice, posh and Tory. See also: speed cameras. And if it shouldn't be a crime, we should rise up to raise the speed limit / impose freedom of information, not just break it and be grumpy when we get caught...)

Yes, all government-collated information that doesn't directly identify individuals or compromise national security should be freely available in the public domain. That's true, and anyone who opposes it is ridiculous. But no matter how fervently we believe it, it's not the law. And the rule of law is what matters - and if anyone's broken the rule of law in this case, it's not the government.

Executive summary for the hard-of-thinking: if stuff is illegal, then people who do it should be arrested, even if they're people who you like. If people who you don't think should be arrested are arrested as a result, you should campaign against the stuff being illegal, not against those particular people being arrested; and you certainly shouldn't invent ridiculous lies about the constitution to justify the illegal actions of the people you like.

[*] technically, this is a lie: I was drunk and laughed my arse off, just as I did when Lord Levy was collared. Mr Green is, after all, a deeply illiberal, anti-immigration, pro-state-imposed-religious-schooling, pro-Iraq-war, anti-drug-legalising, anti-gay gentleman who therefore clearly has no great personal concerns about liberty. However, when I sobered up the next morning, my hangover was exacerbated by concerns over neo-Stalinist tactics.

UPDATE by DK: it seems that Dr Richard North broadly agrees with PDF...

They are watching you

The Metropolitan Police have launched a crime-mapping service, so that you can see how your area fares. My ward is, as it happens, average; in June and July, there were only 4 Burglary, robbery and vehicle crimes reported apparently.

I can believe it, for I didn't bother to report it to the police when my car window was smashed the other day.

As such, I don't know whether to be reassured or slightly apprehensive that I received a letter from the Met on Saturday morning; they were, they said, very sorry to note that I had been the victim of a vehicle crime. Well, thank you for that: although I do wonder whether the crime number indicated is for me personally, or whether it covers al of the vehicles on that road that we done over.

I can only assume that the police noted the plates of the vehicles that had obviously been broken into, and then looked up the registrations at the DVLA. In which case, one might have thought that they could spell out my whole name: it is not "Mr Mou"...

Still, Burning Our Money has more on the crime maps, and he has noticed something a little awry...

And in a spirit of thanks and celebration, we asked our man on the Hill to test drive it. Does it correspond to his perception of crime down his own particularly mean streets?

Straightway he was puzzled. On the Met's crime map, Primrose Hill is coloured blue, which means it's a "below average" crime area. But how could that possibly be? Below average crime for an area that's so scary the residents have to hire private security guards?

So he clicked the link to the underlying stats. And here's what he found (the first three columns relate to the 12 months to June 2008, and the second three to the 12 months to June 2007):


Now, can you by any chance spot the jump-off-the-page-and-smack-you-in-the-gob pattern?

Yes, correct. For both 2007 and 2008, his hood (Camden Town with Primrose Hill) had a much higher crime rate than both Camden generally, and the Met as a whole, FOR EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY OF CRIME. Every single one.

So... er... on what basis has the Met categorised the Hill as a below average crime area? And what must the above average crime areas be like?

Sheer blithering incompetence or outright lies?

Frankly, it makes little difference.

Indeed. Still, this kind of information is still a step in the right direction...

0.04% makes all the difference

As you will know, I think that RMT boss Bob Crow is an evil fucking cunt. Still, I was happy to see that the Tube strike had been called off at the last minute but I was just a wee bit puzzled: you see, the papers were reporting that the strike was called off after the pay deal was raised from 4.95% to 4.99%.

Does 0.04% really make so much difference? I mean, I know that there were allegedly problems with "bullying" suchlike, but surely that was a job for TfL managers and not worth holding a strike over?

On an entirely unrelated note, here's Banditry with a tongue-in-cheek (I think) conspiracy theory. [Apologies for quoting in full.]

[phone rings]
BJ: Wot ho, Bozza here.
BC: Hello. I’m Bob Crow, and I’m evil. I’m going to lead the Tube maintenance workers out on strike (a 5% pay rise just isn’t enough, you see) and paralyse the city.
BC: [evil laugh]
BJ: Oh. That’s dashed inconvenient. Is there, erm, anything we can do to appease you?
BC: Hmmm.
BC: [evil laugh]
BC: Well, there is one thing…
BJ: Jolly good, I always say that reasonable chaps can work things out reasonably.
BC: The guy you hired to run TfL—you know, the one with the record in taking over badly run, overmanned companies, cutting costs, improving services, breaking union strangleholds, that kind of thing?
BJ: Oh yes, Timmy. A bit of an oik—his daddy was a squaddie, what, but the only chap on my team who isn’t a completely useless buffoon.
BC: Hmmm.
BC: He goes.
BC: [evil laugh]
BJ: And that way your chaps will take the 5%?
BC: Oh yes…
BJ: Spiffing fun. Timmy goes, strike’s off, let’s all have tea and cakes.
BC: …until next time.
BC: [evil laugh]

I know, I know: it sounds ker-azeeeee, eh? But I wonder...

UPDATE: Guido's thinking along the same (Tube) lines, it appears...

Parker said when he started in June: "Throughout my business career I have been accountable to exacting shareholders. In my new role, my shareholders will be the taxpayers of London." He took a symbolic £1 in pay. 24 hours after he quit TFL and TubeLines caved in to a ludicrous London Underground pay deal. Hence the RMT's Crowe cancelling the strike. Do you think that perhaps Parker, a famous cost cutter, quit for this reason? Can it be a coincidence? Could Boris have hoisted the white flag because he was petrified of "Tory Cuts" rhetoric?

Hmmmm...

Cooling off

And now, ladies and gentlemen, via The Englishman's Castle, here's another fun climate story.

THE last ice age 13,000 years ago took hold in just one year, more than ten times quicker than previously believed, scientists have warned.
Rather than a gradual cooling over a decade, the ice age plunged Europe into the deep freeze, German Research Centre for Geosciences at Potsdam said.

Cold, stormy conditions caused by an abrupt shift in atmospheric circulation froze the continent almost instantly during the Younger Dryas less than 13,000 years ago – a very recent period on a geological scale.

The new findings will add to fears of a serious risk of this happening again in the UK and western Europe – and soon.

And in completely unrelated news, the sun still resolutely fails to show any spots as we wait for the now very, very late solar cycle to start up...

The sun, today.

Now, does anyone have a spare jumper or two...?

How liberty dies

Via Trixy, here is how freedom and democracy works in the European Parliament. The protest of the MEPs is a stirring moment.

+++
UPDATE: according to YouTube, the video has been removed by the user. That'll teach me to delay ripping it to disk...
+++
UPDATE 2: it's in a new location (and re-posted below). I have now ripped it to disk and am also trying to obtain the original to back-up.
+++


Of course, you won't see any of this on the official Parliament TV broadcast and they tried to stop the above film too.

Someone who also 'did a Titley' was one of the British Conservatives colleagues, Jose Pomes Ruiz, who decided in his wisdom to drag my friend out of the chamber, throw her in a cordoned off area outside the hemicycle and refuse to let her go unless she handed over her footage of the protest. Luckily, she's made of tougher stuff than some Spanish wanker with a chip on his shoulder about democracy (and she didn't want to appear weak next to me who was attacked by 5 people in the European Parliament for protesting!) and I am shortly to receive the YouTube link with the footage of the event, thus sticking two fingers up to the lazy broadcasters who can't be bothered to show it to the British people. Needless to say, it will be on Shoes as soon as I have it.

So, there we go. Charter of Fundamental Rights which, make no mistake, WILL be law in the UK, has been signed by two Portuguese Kilroy lookalikes and a German with no more grasp of democracy than a communist. So it's quite important, and yet you wouldn't know it...

Welcome to freedom and democracy—EU style...

UPDATE: a commenter has left the following...

I have spent some time looking at the BBC news website, and Mark Mardell in particular, for this story, and have not seen anything about it.

This is, of course, quite correct. Despite the fact that there were BBC journalists there, in the EP at the time that this was happening, I have seen nothing on the BBc website about the protest. I may, of course, have missed it.

But the BBC has been maintaining a very strong policy of not quoting anyone from UKIP for the last few months. It is a corrupt organisation which should be removed from state control—and state funding—forthwith.

Ceremonial socialists

Nick Robinson reports that our monocular cunt-faced arse-biscuit of a Prime Minister will, in fact, sign the Reform Treaty EU Constitution*.

The prime minister will travel to Lisbon this Thursday where other EU leaders will sign the European Union Reform Treaty but, tragically (sic), he will arrive too late for the signing ceremony. Mr Brown will be delayed in London by his appearance before select committee chairmen in the Commons and so will arrive only in time for lunch. Downing Street made clear today that he will sign the treaty then but, tragically (sic), the cameras will not record the moment for posterity.

However, the highlight of the post is this wonderful comment from "Justin".

As long as he signs it in the end, what does it matter? We socialists don't go in for all this ceremony stuff.

Absolutely not. Here are some socialists not going in for all this ceremony stuff.


Finally, "Justin" finishes off with a nifty dose of paranoia, just to make all those socialists feel at home (in the absence of a ceremony).

Not having the cameras there benefits the Tories anyway because if they win the next election they could always argue that Gord's signature has been forged. - "where's the proof that it was him signing it?"

Well, I'm learned something today; haven't you?


* Did you see how smug Batshit looked on Newsnight last night as he admitted that it would, indeed, be him signing the Constitution? In the name of all that's un-fucking-holy, I loathe that slimeball...

Skewing the data = lying

Do go and read this interesting post about how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does "science".

So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

As you read it, bear in mind that what the IPCC has done with the sea levels "rises" is precisely the same as they have done with the surface "warming".

It is worth stating for the record: there is no global warming and there is no sea level rise. The IPCC has made the whole thing up. The IPCC are a bunch of stinking, fucking liars.

Despite the fact that she was ousted seventeen fucking years ago and there has been plenty of time to undo any harm that one may perceive her to have done, according to Neil Harding all of the sleaze and financial mismanagement of NuLabour—not to mention just about everything else in the world—is the fault of Margaret Thatcher.

I would rebut his assertions but I simply can't be bothered. As Longrider says, "for fuck's sake, I've heard it all now"...