I Back the Judges
Senior judges are at odds with David Milliband over documents concerning interrogations in the US.
Here’s the first two paragraphs of the BBC report.
Senior judges say the foreign secretary is stopping them releasing details of CIA interrogation techniques – even though the US has published them.
The High Court says it wants to refer to previously classified documents as part of its judgement on the alleged mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed.
Interestingly, it would appear that the BBC’s web page links to the documents on the American Civil Liberties Union.
So if we can all read them on the web, why can’t the judges use them?
But then we are never given the truth by government when it suits them. Chevaline was the codename of the project by the Callaghan Government to update the Polaris missiles in the 1970s. It was kept secret for years and only a few years ago, the only full reference to it on the Internet was on the Federation of American Scientists.
We need a lot more information to be published. And not about MPs expenses, which is just peanuts compared to the dark and terrible secrets of things that governments do in our name.
Gordon Brown
I won’t comment on the policies of the main parties, as they were debated in Parliament after the Queen’s Speech today. To me they are irrelevant, as we must get on with the task of sorting the mess out, rather than scoring points.
But I’ve never heard Prudence sound so tired and almost shot to pieces. He’s not a good or jaunty speaker, but he was as uninspiring as you can get. There didn’t seem to be any conviction in his words, no passion, just the repeating of tired phrases.
He should go! And in the manner suggested by The Moody Blues.
Scientifically-Correct
Some years ago, I had a letter published in The Times, criticising Greenpeace for measuring exhaust emissions in a very unscientific way. They were trying to make a point, but their methods were very wrong. I used the term scientifically-correct in the letter. A few months later I was phoned by the OED and asked where I’d got the phrase. I said that it’s use was obvious and I’d used it for years. So I don’t really claim any first usage on the term, although it may be the case. But I very much doubt it.
But it illustrates how I think. You must get your facts right, even if they end up with a set of thinking that is politically incorrect.
My reasons for being so strong on this, is that sometimes a researcher finds something that is totally against the general view and his peers stop publication and rubbish the research. There was a Horizon program some years ago about how the body works and how a Glasgow professor of veterinary science proved everybody wrong. But it took him years to get his research accepted.
So when Alan Johnson fired Professor David Nutt for speaking the truth, you can have no doubts as to who I think is right.
I also applaud his colleagues who are now saying they have resigned or will do so.
But this row means that what scientist, doctor, engineer or computer scientist would advise Prudence and his rabble, when they know that their good advice will be totally ignored.
Just a Minute
There is a Radio 4 program called Just a Minute.
I think some of the rules of this program should be applied to Prime Minister’s Question Time.
For instance the Repetition Rule. Prudence is a great man for repeating lists of things and it would leave him without his debating style.
President Blair
Prudence is backing Tony Blair for European President.
I am not a lover of Mr. Blair, but is there anybody else with as much experience to do the job? Europe needs someone who countries like the US and China will treat as an equal, so it probably means that person must come from either the UK, France, Germany or Italy.
I also feel that having a Brit in charge may help us in our tricky dealings with Europe. But I doubt it, as Britain is far too against the continent.
Incidentally, I’m not!
I’m all for joining Schengen and the Euro, but feel that we must get a stronger grip on fishing and agriculture. We must also create a coherent foreign policy to which we all sign up and then create the defence structure underneath it.
What Happened to Confidentiality?
Like most people in this country, I want a proper solution to the remuneration and expenses of our MPs. I say most, because I feel that there are some people, who just want MPs to go through the wringer again and again, as it is the latest spectator sport.
But what worries me about the two enquiries going on, is that they seem to be leaking their findings. Or at least testing the marketplace to see how they can be popular with the public and bring MPs into line.
As the title says, “What Happened to Confidentiality?”
To me though what we pay MPs is simple. We should cut their numbers and distribute seats fairly, pay those that remain more and then put all MPs under the same rules as we all are with our businesses. These rules would be enforced by Revenue and Customs.
The latter point may actually relax some rules, as say you are an MP for a distant rural constituency, you would get a lot of allowances and perhaps even pay, but someone who represented say Enfield in London, would be very much on the basics.
Years ago, when I was working for ICI, I did a job for some months, which meant that I was travelling at lunchtime between two places of work. Company rules, meant that I got a taxable bonus, because of the extra stress involved. So even in those far off days in the very early 1970s, industry recognised the stresses and strains of jobs and rewarded people accordingly.
Do we pay our MPs correctly for what they are supposed to do and the stress they suffer? Some yes, but others we don’t!
It would be interesting to also look at the rate of divorces and other problems in MPs families. As I write this, there is a local news story about a prospective candidate, who had a high-profile affair with an MP. I have no idea whether it is more than the national average, but MPs staying overnight in London, with their spouse in the constituency do seem to feature in the tabloids from time to time.
It’s a mess. And in my view, it’s a mess created because we do not pay MPs the going rate for a difficult job, that should attract the best talent in the country. More and more, it seems to attract political timeservers and yes-men, who want to get to the top, by any means possible.
There is one solution to the problem. Several countries have a political list system, where you vote for the party and then MPs are chosen proportionally. All are party hacks and all live near Parliament. It solves the expenses problem, as MPs don’t have particular constituencies, so they have few travel expenses.
Heaven save us from such a system.
Nick Griffin Humour
There’s quite a bit of humour surrounding Nick Griffin and the BNP.
Two things made be laugh like a drain.
Kelvin MacKenzie in his robust way, said that on Radio 5 last night, that Griffin had had a severe rogering! It was the way he said it though! You’d expect nothing less from Kelvin.
Danny Baker commented this morning on the radio about the news that one-in-five people might think about voting for the BNP. He dismissed it by saying that nine out of ten men might like to give Jennifer Aniston a baby, but that that was unlikely to happen.
How to Make Science Fit Your Prejudices
Nick Griffin seems to have hijacked science from Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, a geneticist at the University of Oxford, to fit his prejudices, according to The Times. I have a feeling that is not the first time that they’ve used scientifically-correct books and research to back-up their views. In fact, that excellent book by Robert Winder, Bloody Foreigners, which is a meticulously researched history of immigration into the UK, is recommended on the BNP’s web site. I suspect though that it has too long sentences for most people who support such a party.
This is very much a trick of racists and fascists. Hitler did it all the time and was always looking for research to fit his awful theories. Read The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze to find out more.
But Griffin has had a bad day.
He tried to blame the BBC for his poor showing on Question Time, last night. I put it down to his bankrupt policies and the fact that he was out of his depth amongst his fellow panelists and the audience. After all it’s one thing to get up in front of friends as he does in the BNP and another to get up in front of critics.
He is no Jorg Haider or Geert Wilders.
I did like this comment on The Times article.
The Irish invented whiskey when they learnt distillation after trading perfume with Arab Muslims which proves Nick Griffin’s theory about how foreigners are destroying our heritage! If it wasn’t for those Muslims, we wouldn’t have all those alcoholics!
Nick Griffin on the Holocaust
He said last night that he couldn’t understand why he had denied the Holocaust in the past. He also said that EU law prevented him from explaining.
I need nobody like him to educate me about the Holocaust. I’ve read extensively and visited places such as Minsk and Prague, where only an idiot would deny what happened.
For a man who actually went to Cambridge University, he does seem rather stupid.
But then nearly all fascists and dictators are. The trouble is that their narrow philosophies don’t work, as to have a successful economy everybody needs to be brought into the thick of things to maximise the means of production and invention.
It could be argued that one of the reasons we succeeded in the Second World War, was that we mobilised everybody to build the planes, vehicles and other equipment we needed. All political parties were part of the Government.
So in fact Churchill, who Griffin claimed would sit happily in the BNP, was very much a man for all the talents.
Welcome to the Nick Griffin Comedy Hour
This must be one of the funniest programs for some time. A lot of heavy boots were used to good effect and in Bonnie Greer’s case some very well-placed stilettos.
Unfortunately, how many of his supporters will find it so and will still believe his totally objectionable views.
He says you’re British if you’ve only been here for seventeen hundred years. So that’s me on the next boat out, then! Most of my family came here to escape persecution in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
