Nominative Determinism?

Possibly just a really impressive piece of naming by her parents, or the sort of unfortunate juxtaposition that coincidence likes to throw up, but a woman named Cassandra telling police that her husband would kill her, and the police then not doing anything about it, is eerily reminiscent of Greek mythology, don't you think?

As It Keeps Disappearing

Philip Pullman's article on Civil Liberties in The Times seems to be flipping in and out of existence, so I have re-printed the whole thing here. It is relatively long, but it is worth reading.

Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

"The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum"

Scottish Drinkers, It Appears You're Next.

As the Scots are used to being fucked first - it was they who had to endure the Poll Tax first - they should have been expecting the upcoming change to alcohol sales that has been revealed by Scotland on Sunday.

MINISTERS are to press ahead with a crackdown on sales of cheap alcohol in a move that could be fast-tracked through Parliament in as little as six months, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

In the biggest shake-up of alcohol laws for years, the Government is expected to confirm tomorrow that cut-price drink offers will be banned, minimum prices on alcohol imposed and a higher age limit set on off-sales.

A minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, as advocated by health campaigners, would result in rocketing prices. A two-litre bottle of cider, currently priced at around £3, would cost £7.50. Wine would also increase in price, with a £3 bottle of wine possibly rising to a minimum of £5.

The controversial plan to increase the age limit for off-sales to 21 is to remain in the proposals, despite opposition from students.

Scotland on Sunday understands that ministers may seek to place some of the measures – such as the ban on "Buy One Get One Free" deals – in the existing 2005 Licensing Act, which is due to come into force in September.

The Act enshrines "protecting and improving public health" as a key objective of all licensing decisions, so the Government may argue that it gives the power to ban cheap drink offers. The same logic could also be applied to plans to impose minimum pricing.

What the Scotsman fails to add is that this should guarantee a boom for retailers just South of the border. Imagine the queues of 18 year old Scots hanging around Tesco in Carlisle until they open at 8am on a Monday. It's not as if they've got much else to do, is it? But bootlegging is at least a career. Or it is until the Government down in England make similar changes to the law.

Drinkers, you're fucked next. Please adopt the position and lube yourself thoroughly, this may hurt.

I Shall Call Ye Cassandra.

A spookily prescient blog from Crashomatic that pretty much covers why printing more money is a bad thing, and that it only benefits the people who actually print the money.

I heartily recommend you read the whole thing - even though it is with a US slant - as it does explain a lot of things very clearly and very quickly.

Hat-tip to The Devil for pointing this one my way.

Possibly A Bit Late

As it's already climbed back above $300 a share, but if Google drops back below that figure, then you may want to consider buying into it. There's a very good chance - IMHO, although I am not a stockbroker, thank fuck - that you could double your money within 12 months.

You can track Google's price here

The Stepford Society

I will be posting something about the current crackdown on alcohol very shortly, but thought this article from Computer Weekly would be of interest.

In a keynote speech to delegates at the City IT and IT Security Forum, Ian Pearson, a former BT "futurologist" and a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society, spoke of a backlash against the government's preoccupation with surveillance technologies. He warned that IT suppliers who collaborate with the government on the increasing surveillance of law-abiding citizens face a public backlash, and may be at risk of acts of violence, including the smashing of computer centres.

Within five years Pearson predicted that the government's crackdown on law-abiding people could lead to marches in the street, demonstrations outside some computer centres and - if the government takes no action - targeted acts of violence.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, it worries me that it's mainly people involved in IT that seem to be the most aware of the totalitarian state in which we are living. The Register often points out the worrying use of IT to monitor the general population, and here we have Ian Pearson saying that IT will be used to monitor the law-abiding citizens. Can everyone else please wake the fuck up?

He told the invited audience of some of the UK's largest IT suppliers and users, "By 2012 to 2013 tops you will see a technology backlash in the major population. Why is it relevant to you? Because if your firm is providing services to government authorities, which help the government to crack down on law-abiding people, you are in the firing line. Be very careful you are on the right side of the line when the [backlash occurs]. You need to be very careful indeed."

Indeed you do. Come the glorious Revolution the piano wire/lampost combination will be a fetching look for politicians and their assorted hangers on, we don't need geeks up there unless it is strictly necessary.

Is It Possible?

I'm not a one for physics, but could someone please tell me if it's possible to use someone - say Hazel Blears - as a weapon to attack someone else - say Jacqui Smith - and that they would both end up dead?

I suspect that if I was to pick Blears (also known as "Bleats", and, my personal favourite, "Ginger Haze") up by her legs and swing her around my head (as one would in the Olympic Hammer event) and walk towards Smith to get their heads to connect at great speed, then I should achieve my aim. If anyone has any improvements to this plan that don't involve conventional weaponry or piano wire, use the comments section below. If anyone has any objections, please address them to \dev\null\ or just fuck off.

My ire, you see, has been raised by both these demented women in the space of just 24 hours. Smith for the reasons outlined in the post below (oh, and then claiming that people come up to her "all the time" asking her why they can't have an ID Card now - you want to watch out for those people Jacqui, they're obviously mental). Blears for the comments I read regarding bloggers that I shall outline here.

In a closed meeting, Blears gave a speech - ironically in a meeting about political disengagement - which said that corrosive cynicism, fueled by politically nihilistic blogs and a retreat from dispassionate reporting, is endangering British political discourse and fueling growing political disengagement in Britain.

And that "in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers."

Yes, you did read that correctly. Blears is suggesting that the comments of the general populace of this country shouldn't be viewed as being as important as the delusional wittering of a cabinet minister. That would be the population who votes for the politicians who then go on to become said cabinet ministers, by the way, in case you had forgotten. Said by a woman who has never had a proper job her entire life.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your cynicism levels.

"Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

So it's the fault of bloggers that a large percentage of people in this country think politicians are greedy, lying, grasping cunts with no idea - or concern - how their decisions affect real people?

Oh really? I was under the impression that politicians being paid a fucking fortune to do fuck all besides rubber stamp "initiatives" from the EU while simultaneously stuffing their own pockets with "expenses" (despite working in a building with a subsidised bar - where you can still smoke - and restaurant) and looking forward to the best pension scheme in the fucking country, might have caused some of the cynicism love, but that's just me, I guess.

And just how, exactly, do you propose getting "more disparate voices" involved in political blogging, you short chipmunk-faced bint? Political bloggers aren't elected, the popular ones are popular because they report stuff people are interested in. They aren't necessarily sponsored or rich, they're just people who want to complain or praise politicians. The fact more people complain - and more people are interested in the ones who complain - surely suggests there's something going wrong at your end, rather than at ours.

It's not as if there's any way of stopping people setting up a blog and ranting. Oh wait, that's your fucking proposal, isn't it? Funnily enough, something the EU proposed earlier this year, a licence for bloggers.

So to get more "people" (and by that I'm taking that you mean "more people who agree with you") involved in political blogging, you're proposing to introduce lengthy bureaucratic paperwork requiring full disclosure of personal details, and then a fee. A fee which would therefore reduce the number of people blogging? Or a fee you would waive if the person applying agreed with your policies?

But how would you stop people from just blogging anyway? Oh, I see you're proposing to take control of Nominet. So anyone with a .uk domain name could be instantly taken offline (and presumably shot) by the government? Sounds remarkably like state censorship, that, or something North Korea would do.

You are a cunt, Blears, a cunt of the highest proportion. I shall batter Smith to death using you as a mace and I shall be happy, covered in the blood and bone of the pair of you, grinning like a fucking loon. Then I will go after the one eyed son of a manse, and force him to eat the shit that comes out of the corpses of both Smith and Blears. When he is sated - or I've decided he is - I'll cleave his fucking head with a hatchet.

I am the Revolution, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

ID Cards, Every Little Helps

Rather interesting - if you happen to be a geek, like wot I am - news today on the introduction of ID Cards.

First up, the Government seem to have backed down a bit from their initial proposal to force all airside workers to have ID Cards. Well, Government issued ID Cards that is; they currently all do have ID Cards - issued to them by the airport after they've undergone a far stricter vetting process than the one the Government is proposing for the new shiny Government issued ID Cards. But I digress.

The Register is saying that the plans for ID cards for airport workers are in deep trouble, with the news that next year's rollout has been downscaled to an 18 month trial at only two airports, Manchester and City of London. According to a report in the Financial Times, the Home Secretary is due to announce the trial on Thursday but that no agreement has yet been reached on whether or not the trial would cover existing workers, or only new employees.

According to the FT, Manchester and London City only signed up to the scheme "in principle" after the government agreed to provide a further £500,000 for pre-employment checks for airport staff. Nor, says the paper, is there any guarantee that the scheme will be extended to the rest of the airline industry after the trial concludes. Opposition within the airline industry has been virtually unanimous, however, and the sudden appearance of a lengthy trial at two smaller airports - as opposed to a general rollout across the industry - suggests strongly that the Home Office is losing this fight.

The Home Office, however, denied the 18-month trial was a retreat on plans to issue all 200,000 airside workers with cards: "We made it clear when we published the Delivery Plan in March 2008 that ID cards for critical workers would be 'starting in the second half of 2009' and we are on track to meet this commitment," a Home Office spokesman said. No2ID have said it was a "transparent attempt to save ministerial face" after anger from airport unions and airline bosses.

The Unite union, which represents airport workers, has said staff are already extensively vetted before being given airside passes. Airport unions have been resisting the scheme, saying workers would have to pay £30 for a card to do their jobs. Airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and EasyJet, also spoke out against the plan, saying it was "unjustified" and would not improve security.

So the Government think it's a good idea, and everybody in the affected industry says it's a stupid and unnecessary idea which will do nothing to improve security.

You can see how this is going to end, can't you?

The Government will claim (but without giving any information as it would "undermine efforts by the security services") that a plot to smuggle a bomb/suicide bomber aboard a plane has been stopped and that they simply MUST improve security by introducing these passes. The airlines, unions and airports won't be able to complain - as there's no actual evidence - and the plans will be forced through.

Thinking about it, doesn't the timing of this story seem just a little suspicious? An MP walks through security at an airport carrying a large knife in her bag and no-one notices. So she reports it to the papers. Yet she's not arrested for carrying a knife? Or attempting to carry a knife onto a plane? Wouldn't things have been oh so different if a Muslim teenager had done exactly the same thing? I digress again, but my point is, that it seems kinda odd to me that this story comes out THE DAY BEFORE this announcement by Smith.

Smith has been busy though, sadly, as her stupid mind has also let her think that we would be far happier giving all our fingerprint details for ID Cards (the ones EVERYBODY will have to carry, not the Airside ones) to the supermarkets, rather than have to go to a special Government unit.

On plans to involve retailers and the Post Office in the ID cards scheme, a spokesman said it would be "more convenient" for people than the government's original plan to set up enrolment centres in large population centres.

The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) would continue to carry out enrolment at its offices but a spokesman said it also wanted to

"drive down costs using market forces and competition" and was talking to a "range of high street retailers and other organisations". He stressed that security of data would remain the "utmost priority". "Any third party involved in enrolment would be accredited and audited to ensure they meet and continue to meet robust and strictly administered security standards.

"System design standards will ensure that no data is stored locally and that all data is transmitted directly to IPS using a secure communications link. In addition all locations and personnel will be subject to strict security standards set by IPS."

Let's hope that their standards are a bit higher than everyone else in Government, and all the details won't be left on a USB key in a pub car park or on a train.

I - along with a few others - are wondering just which retailers would sign up to this scheme. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for doing so. Both the Tories and the LibDems have said that they would scrap the ID Card scheme, so any company making the necessary investment in the equipment are likely to discover it redundant after an election. Similarly, any retailer involved would surely be the subject of a campaign to stop people shopping there. In the current financial climate, that would surely put a damper on even the most enthusiastic company chairman (no doubt eyeing themselves a peerage).

Unless. Unless there's a HUGE incentive for a retailer to take part in this scheme. Like being the only official supplier of alcohol in the UK? Like being the only supermarket allowed to open 24 hours a day all week? Surely the lure of a peerage can't be enough to entice a major retailer into the moneypit with the Government.

UPDATE:

Just seen this on Guido and it made me howl. While giving a speech elsewhere today (hasn't she been busy, eh?) a No2ID sympathiser nicked the glass she'd been drinking from. Her fingerprints will be copied from it, and if there's any DNA on it, that too will be taken.

Not too secure with your data, are you love?

(deep breath)

A-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The Perfect Man For The Job?

The BBC are reporting that the chair of the committee conducting an inquiry into dangers on the internet and computer games - Conservative MP John Whittingdale - today discovered that his own daughter was breaking the rules of a social networking site.

During a hearing on Tuesday, the MP asked what the minimum age was appropriate for joining Bebo - and was told under US legislation, 13 was the minimum age. The following is, according to the BBC, the exchange that took place:

He said: "My daughter is 12, she's been on Bebo for at least 18 months. I think every single one of her friends is and she spends, oh, hours on it - it's universal, way below 13 - do you think that that is inappropriate?"

Dr Rachel O'Connell (Bebo safety chief) said when parents reported under-age use, the child's page would be deleted.

Mr Whittingdale asked: "But you said in the US it's 13 - whereas there is no such thing here." However, Dr O'Connell replied: "That applies for our whole service."

Mr Whittingdale said: "So my daughter shouldn't be on Bebo?" Dr O'Connell answered: "That's true."

So obviously that'll turn out to be the internet's fault, and not him failing to adequately supervise his child. It has been said for YEARS that children should not have a PC in their room and that their use of the internet should be supervised so that they don't sign up for something only appropriate to adults. While demonstrating this quite so eloquently, Whittingdale will probably demand more net censorship thus removing his responsibility to his own child.

As I've said previously, if you want children, you take the responsibility. Don't try and stop me from doing something just because you're worried your child will be offended by it.

Calling Time On Pubs

In a report today, CAMRA said that 57 pubs a month are closing permanently. Last week the British Bar & Pub Association claimed that the figure was 27 per week. For argument's sake, let's call it three a day.

So, three businesses per day are closing. Three multiple sources of revenue (Business Rates, VAT, Duty, Income Tax etc) for the Government, gone. Three sources of employment for their local community no longer there. Three more reasons why a beer delivery company could lay off a driver. Three less places needing a window cleaner, a garden furniture company or an awning manufacturer.

It's not just a pub. It's a local business. It's the centre of many a community.

As I predicted many moons ago, first the Government went after smokers, next they'll go after the drinkers.

And drinkers, they've already started.

This week sees the Budget. It is widely predicted that taxes on whisky - kept at a constant level under Brown - will rise under Darling. Pints are expected to close in on a frankly unbelievable £4 a pint. The Tories have said they want a 50p tax on alco-pops*.

Do me a favour, pop into your local this month. It may be the last chance you get.

* - This goes to show how out of touch politicians are with reality. Who really still drinks "alco-pops"? Kids these days would prefer the numbing quality of vodka with the punch of Red Bull, or the soothing appley goodness of a "premium" cider.

Police Can Challenge Pay Deal

In more great news for the Government, Police Federation lawyers have been told by a High Court judge that they can challenge the ruling on their recently-introduced but in-no-way-backdated 1.9% payrise.

Mr Justice Collins said he had "no hesitation" in ruling there was a case to apply for judicial review. The hearing will take place before two judges on 15 April, so expect to hear some other news items suggesting the police have overstepped their boundaries, vis-a-vis some MP bugging or what have you, some time before early April.

All Hail Cassandra

Yes folks, like a fat monkey armed with a machine gun, I've scored another random hit on my predictionometer!!

After my post of last October about how it would be a good idea to make cookery lessons compulsory in schools (see the the last paragraph), the Government announced today that it would be doing that very same thing.

Which, after my more recent prediction about Kevin Keegan, does make me think I'm either coming into line with popular common thinking (and if so, DEAR GOD) or I'm some kind of Cassandra figure. I can predict what I like (and I did actually predict a draw between Liverpool & Aston Villa last night to a customer at work) but people just won't believe me.

Having read Gary Feldman's predictions of last year - and he did get a few things right, although I've never been arrested for Mackem bashing nor repatriated to Newcastle - I'm going to have a think today and see if I can come up with any for the coming twelve months.

Right now though, I have a horrible feeling there's going to be something akin to the Winter of Discontent (Wilson's not Shakespeare's) coming up all too soon. Particularly as this Government also appear intent on forcing limits on public sector pay rises to below inflation.

Can I therefore just quickly recommend purchasing candles? And perhaps some tinned food.

Thanks For Listening!

This is a message to Mike Ashley and Chris Mort, who appear to read my blog.

Thanks for sacking Allardyce, as I asked. And thanks for hiring Keegan, as I asked just the other day!

Nice to know someone out there listens to me!

The Housing Market

I know I'm not the first to point this out - and I doubt I'm going to be the last - but what the hell is going on with the housing market in this country?

Where I currently live (North London) we pay £850 a month between us to rent a two bedroom flat. That rent includes Council Tax and Water Rates and I consider it to be a pretty sweet deal. Yes the kitchen could be bigger and the bathroom would be greatly improved by a shower that worked, but otherwise, it's not a bad place to live.

I've just been looking to see what the cost of buying a similar place would be. And I was utterly astounded. For a one bed in Palmers Green I'd be looking at £160k. Assuming I don't have a deposit of any great size, that would mean a mortgage repayment of about £1k a month. Which is more than we're currently paying for somewhere twice the size, and there'd still be Council Tax, Water Rates, Buildings Insurance etc on top of that.

How in God's name is *anyone* supposed to buy somewhere when it costs that much?

And it's not just because I'd want to buy in roughly the same area I currently live in. There's just not a lot out there. If I wanted to live in Tottenham or Edmonton I'd still be looking at £120k for a one bed - unless it's in a tower block, and you can't generally get mortgages on the upper floors of tower blocks - which strikes me as bonkers.

Surely if no-one comes onto the bottom of the property ladder, then there's no movement? It's just people churning through similar properties higher up the ladder, trying to make a small profit. The potential for buying to let is similarly restricted (unless you already own lots of property and can get a relatively cheap mortgage) as the mortgage repayments per month are higher than the money that can be made back from rental income.

And yet, the price of houses continues to rocket.

I think - and here's my prediction for the year - that within 12 months; the housing market will have slowed and begun to cool; interest rates will have risen by over 1%; and more houses will be repossesed.

So yeah, basically, I'll not be looking to move house within the next year.