Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Entries by Bishop Hill (6690)

Thursday
Jan042007

Girl guides ain't what they used to be

There were a few raised eyebrows yesterday when the Girl Guides organisation announced that they were going to start teaching girls about safe sex, date rape and abortion. This was apparently in response to complaints from the girls that these topics were not well covered by schools. Denise King, the head of GirlGuiding UK says that the organisation needs to be discussing issues relevant to the girls' lives.

You can see it can't you: the delegations of teenagers confronting Brown Owl and demanding a class in date rape avoidance. "No baking today, Brown Owl, we need to know where to get a decent abortion".

Seriously though, does anyone really think this is really demanded by the girls. And if you are in any doubt, see this from 2001.

The `Irish Sunday People` (April 29th 2001) features a report titled `Fury over gay advice for guides`, which tells how Girl Guide leaders have sparked outrage by planning to teach innocent youngsters about LESBIANISM. Family and youth concern directory `Robert Whelan has voiced his concern saying `It goes against all the high ideals the girl guides was originally set up to promote`.

Speciallist counsellors will be recruited when Guide workers are too embarrassed to talk about sexual issues. Denise King, Deputy Chief executive for the guides has said "Our aim is to be relevent to young women".

[Emphasis is mine] 

 Ms King seems to have a bit of an agenda, doesn't she?

Thursday
Jan042007

Mill on education

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.

On Liberty, Chapter 5. 

Unfortunately state education is, and is likely to remain, the declared policy of all major UK political parties. Is it any wonder why people are switched off by politics?

Monday
Jan012007

More madness

Via Pajamas Media, the transcript of an interview with the Editor-in-chief of Al-Jazeera, Ahmed Sheikh.

Choice excerpt:

Interviewer: Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?

Al Jazeera: I think so.

 Is it just me or is the whole world suddenly losing the plot? 

Monday
Jan012007

Workers to unite behind Tories

Well, according to David Cameron at least. The Boy King's latest outburst has been greeted with a mixture of bemusement and derision in most quarters, which was probably only to be expected. We still think of the Conservatives as the party of the upper classes and Labour as the party of the trades unions.

But if you stop to think about it, the Thatcher governments did more for the poorest in society than anything nearly any Conservative or Labour government has done before or since. Certainly far more than the current jokers have done.

Kerron Cross is, of course, right behind the government as a party loyalist should be.

We remember the 1980s, the 1990s, and heck we even remember what we've had so far of the 2000s. We remember their anti-worker policies and positions and how they let down the poorly paid.

Unfortunately he doesn't explain what these anti-worker policies were supposed to have been, but let's just get a grip shall we? Telephone bills fell through the floor after privatisation. Was that anti-worker? Of course not; only a fool would suggest otherwise. Foreign holidays on cheap airlines? Attacks on the working classes are they? They didn't exist in the seventies because airline tickets were the exclusive preserve of the rich and you could barely take currency out of the country, thanks to Labour's "pro-worker" currency controls. Privatisation was the most pro-worker policy for decades, transforming the lifestyles of millions of people for the better.

Kerron goes on to ask of the Tories:

For example if you want a better standard of living for the poor, why did you oppose the minimum wage?

Because basic economics says that a minimum wage will lead to a reduction in demand for labour from the low paid? Hours will be reduced or jobs lost. You can argue that it won't happen, in the same way that you can argue that the world is flat, but nobody is going to take you very seriously. Now Labour has set the MW pretty low, so there may have been no effect, but if there was no effect then the policy was only a gesture, rather than the policy triumph its supporters claim. Meanwhile, the evidence is that there has been a reduction in hours. Kerron needs to face it: the minimum wage is more of an anti-worker policy than anything the Tories ever did.

Why did you oppose the working families tax credit and child credit?

Because they were predicted to be an over-complicated shambles, as indeed they have turned out to be?  I would have thought a Labour supporter would have wanted to keep quiet about tax credits.

Why did you allow unemployment to hit 3million last time you were in power[?].

And there you have it, gentle reader: Labour's top blogger believes that the high unemployment of the 1980s and 90s was a deliberate anti-worker policy of the Conservative party.  Call it incompetence and you might make a case, but surely this is plain bonkers. And they call the Tories the "stupid party"!

Thursday
Dec282006

Hat tips

Just a word to give credit for the civil liberties section of the previous post. Large chunks of this were lifted from this post at Blogzilla, and from the comments on it by WTWU of Spy Blog fame.

Thursday
Dec282006

The Eighty-Five Theses

As your government totters towards its end, Prime Minister, it is time to begin an assessment of the damage you have done to the country. I set down here some of your least glorious acheivements. There is little with which to balance them, on the credit side of the ledger.

  1. Your government, Prime Minister, has continuously and systematically attacked the civil liberties for which generations of Britons have fought.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Dec272006

Hunting ASBOs

Via The Englishman, an article in the Telegraph which reports that the League Against Cruel Sports are going to try to use ASBOs against foxhunts.

Asbos could be served for trespassing, parking 4x4 vehicles in country lanes and "aggressive behaviour" by huntsmen and hounds against people and pets, said the league which has managed only one successful private prosecution since the Act came into force in February 2005.

This is of course what civil libertarians have always said was the major problem with ASBOs. They require so little by way of proof that they become a route to oppress those who can't be convicted of anything, either because of a lack of evidence or because they haven't actually done anything wrong. Either way, the Government doesn't care, it just wants them dealt with and a headline secured.

Fortunately their chances of success seem slim:

But Andrew Keogh, a Manchester solicitor who edited Asbo Law Reports, said: "The easiest [complaint] to go for would be dogs barking or being unruly. But I view the chances of success as very slim indeed."

This is good news. It wouldn't surprise me though to see the hunts try the same approach on the League Against Cruel Sports, whose approach to "peaceful" protest seems be exactly the kind of behaviour that ASBOs were created to deal with.  This would obviously be immensely cheering in terms of rubbing their noses in it, but it wouldn't be much of a victory for liberal England.

Wednesday
Dec202006

A thought

If Lord Levy is found guilty, presumably he will be stripped of his peerage, like Jeffrey Archer was?

Wednesday
Dec202006

Control of public sector spending

Chris Dillow wonders if Gordon Brown is actually in control of public sector spending, the unwritten suggestion being that he isn't.

In order for an organisation to be in control of spending, it has to have a time phased budget, and regular reports of its performance against budget. For a group of organisations like the government the results of the individual units have to be consolidated to give an overall picture of the group performance.

As far as I know, most public sector organistions are not able to produce accurate management accounts within a reasonable time after the period end. The government is certainly not able to produce consolidated accounts at any time, let alone monthly. Huge corrections at the year end are the norm, rather than the exception.

How then can it even be suggested that the government is in control of its spending? 

Monday
Dec182006

Welfare reform. Again.

See this announcement of John Hutton's that he's going to deal with the long-term unemployed? Unless I'm very much mistaken, when they were first elected in 1997, NuLab slapped a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to fund a "sustained assault on structural unemployment" or some such nonsense. So presumably this announcement is a tacit admission that either they spent the money on something else or that they wasted it all.

I wonder which it could be? 

Thursday
Dec142006

After the deluge

Well, the flood waters were gone by the morning. It was amazing that, where the river had rushed along the main road last night, there was now no sign that anything had happened at all. We seem to have made it to the BBC website. Rather impressively they have managed to get the identification of the river wrong - it was the Back Burn rather than the River Queich which flooded the town centre. The Quiech skirts the edge of the town half a mile away.

Questions are already being asked about why the new flood defences failed. The risk to the town centre comes from the Back Burn passing through a culvert under the Town Hall and the main road. If the volume of water is too high it backs up until it the river bursts its banks just upstream of the culvert.

The new flood defences seem to have involved clearing the river bed of debris and building up the retaining walls in this critical area above the culvert. Now, I'm no expert, but all this seems to do is to increase the flow of water towards the choke point, but seeking to contain it. But isn't building up the walls rather futile in the face of a major flood? Surely even the tallest wall can't hope to contain this volume of water? Shouldn't a proper flood defence scheme aim to move the choke point much further upstream to somewhere where excess water can be released away from civilisation? 

Who decided on this particular design of flood defence? Are they qualified? How much were they paid? We need to know. 

Wednesday
Dec132006

Rain and rain and rain

It's been a terrible month for rain here, and its been tipping it down pretty much non-stop for the last three days.

Tonight the river through the village lost the plot and burst its banks, making a nonsense of the new flood defence works which were completed just a few weeks ago. Having said that, I don't think any flood defence works would have stood up to the battering ours have received in recent days.

There are quite a few houses completely flooded, and several businesses are going to be hard hit, not least of which is the post office - one which can ill afford the expense. Fortunately, we're well above the river.

This was the view along the main road an hour ago. It's still raining and its forecast to keep going for another twenty four hours or so.

DSC03498b.JPG 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The photo is not the clearest, but everything you can see between the camera and the man in high-vis clothing is water. 

And before anyone mentions global warming, the old-timers are saying it's nearly as bad as the one in 1991.

Sunday
Dec102006

New on the blogroll

Out From Under - apparently a Liberal Democrat who is in the wrong party.

Liberal Polemic - who hasn't worked it out yet.

Both well worth visiting. 

Sunday
Dec102006

Instruments of attainder

An Act of Attainder is an act of parliament passed against a particular person or sometimes a group of people. Until their use died out in the late eighteenth century they were a means by which the King could convict anyone he liked without needing to persuade a jury of his case. The last recorded Act of Attainder was passed against the Irish rebel Lord Fitzgerald in 1798.

Until now.

Christopher Booker recounts the truly shocking story of Bowland Dairies, a small Lancashire cheesemaker which was on the receiving end of a short visit from EU inspectors. The inspectors claimed that the milk did not meet EU rules on antibiotic residues, and, despite a Food Standards Agency visit confirming that this was incorrect, they went on to confirm a ban on the company's products. Even when they were defeated in the European courts, the Commission went ahead an banned the company from trading. They went on to threaten the UK with a full audit of every dairy in the country and a fine for not protecting consumers.

If anything it then gets worse

Despite the FSA's solid support of Bowland and its insistence that no rules had been broken, the Department of Health bowed to the commission's diktat. On October 16 it rushed through a statutory instrument, the Curd Cheese (Restriction on Placing on the Market) Regulations 2006, to take immediate effect. Section 3 read "No person shall place on the market any curd cheese manufactured by Bowland Dairy Products Limited".

Never before, it is believed, has a statutory instrument been issued in Britain directed at closing down a single named company (breaching the ancient principle of British law that "the law must be blind", i.e. it must be general in application, not directed at any specific individual or body).

This is therefore the first Act of Attainder passed in this country since Lord Fitzgerald in 1798. If anything it's worse than that - it's a statutory instrument rather than an act of Parliament, so it doesn't even carry the moral authority of having passed a vote in both houses. Essentially the executive have taken upon themselves the power to outlaw someone without resort to the courts, without even the backing of Parliament. Tony Blair has only to point his finger at you and you are outlawed.

That's tyranny isn't it? 

 

Saturday
Dec092006

Playing the race card

Bit of a to-do over at Councillor Bob Piper's. The good councillor has gone and posted a picture of David Cameron photoshopped to look like something out of the Black & White Minstrel show. Tory Diary and Prague Tory are outraged and are letting their feelings be known.

sortitrr.jpgNow let's not kid ourselves. A Conservative couldn't do anything like this and get away with it. They would be hounded out of office, with every left-wing blog in the country snapping at their heels like a bunch of rabid mongrels. But let's also not kid ourselves that Bob Piper is some sort of racist. Foul-mouthed and offensive, yes, but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this was targeted at blacks. 

Mind you if I was black, I wouldn't be desperately impressed at being reminded that my ancestors had been looked down on in this way, and I might well be tempted to make a complaint to someone. There are some episodes of history which it would be better to consign to history. How are the scars of the past ever going to be healed if the left keeps trying to open them again for their grubby little political ends?

 
It's instructive to compare Bob Piper's pictures to a very similar photo of Joe Libermann which was put out by Jane Hamsher, a supporter of Ned Lamont, earlier in the year.

liebermanhamsher.jpgAs Outside the Beltway said at the time:

As political satire, it’s incredibly risky, period. But to use it in the context of a blog post that has nothing to do with [...] race relations in general is just inexplicable.

Hamsher later issued an apology (of sorts) and withdrew the picture. The Lamont campaign made strenuous efforts to distance themselves from her. I would imagine that Bob Piper would be best advised to do the same thing before the Labour party decides to distance itself from him.

 Even stranger though,  was this picture of Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for Maryland senator, also done out in blackface and also the production of a left-wing blog. Strange because, if it's not obvious from the photo, Michael Steele is black anyway.

steelesmeared.jpg

Why is it that left-wing commentators feel free to use this kind of photo which must be offensive to millions of black people? What is it they hope to acheive? To me it marks them out as crude, unthinking people. Who would want to vote for people with minds so corrupt? They must be pretty desperate to let the mask slip like this. 

Labour has accused the Conservatives of playing the race card whenever they have raised the subjects of immigration and multiculturalism. We should be clear that discussing immigration and multiculturalism is not playing the race card. This is.