First Class posts on Friday

Welcome to 'Letters From A Tory', covering British politics from a conservative perspective. Please leave a comment if you have any thoughts about today's letter, and don't forget that you can CLICK HERE to get my letters sent to you by RSS every morning.

1. Burning Our Money explains why going to hospital could be very bad for your health.

2. The Appalling Strangeness doesn’t want to be ‘denormalised’ by Labour.

3. Dave’s Part tries to give ‘Red Toryism’ a good kicking.

4. A Very British Dude discusses Section 28, dirty tricks and the gay vote.

5. Ambush Predator explains how suncream can land you in court.




Quote of the day

“An unsavoury character could have come in and we just can’t put the children in the event or the students at the host school at risk like that.  The ultimate fear is that a child is hurt or abuducted, and we must take all measures possible to prevent that.”

- Paul Blunt, development manager at the East Beds School Sports Partnership, explaining why parents were banned from attending their children’s school sports day to protect pupils from potential child abductors and paedophiles.  More than 270 pupils from four primary schools in Bedfordshire took part in the East Beds School Sports Partnership Athletics Day, but there were no spectators present because the organisers said allowing them would make it impossible to prevent “unsavoury” characters from attending.  A risk assessment concluded that the host school, Sandy Upper School in Biggleswade, could not “guarantee the children’s safety”. Parents have condemned the ban.  Mother-of-three Emma Collett, 33, of Biggleswade, has a child at St Andrews Lower School in the town. “I would have taken time off work to support my child. It would have meant a lot to me,” she said. “I’m all for measures to protect the safety of children but lines must be drawn and common sense must prevail.” (fat chance – Ed.)




Is gay marriage going to become an election battleground?

Dear Chris Bryant,

Obviously you’re feeling a bit left out as Foreign Office Minister these days, so you’ve decided to cause a stir in the newspapers this morning with your comments about civil partnerships and homosexuality.  Personally, I think your views are vindictive for the most part, even though you might have inadvertently stumbled across some issues that would be worth discussing.

First came the accusation that “if gays vote Tory they will rue the day very soon.” Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw also chipped in by saying ”a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”.  However, you weren’t done there.  Apparently, as an openly gay minister you think it is your place to decide that homosexual “weddings” should be celebrated in churches.  You want clergy to be “much more open” to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages.  Having trained as an Anglican priest yourself, you declared that: “All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their ‘marriage’ or their ‘wedding’ so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality. I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church.”  Not unsurprisingly, this goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church.   The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said: “Of course all citizens must have equal rights without discrimination. But marriage is the basis of the family, and the stability of the family is grounded in the sameness in difference between men and women. Those who make public law have to realise that people of faith have consciences that need to be respected.”  A spokesman for the Church of England said: “The Church of England’s approach has always been clear: marriage is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, and that is what the liturgy of the C of E Marriage Service is exclusively intended for. …Some who register civil partnerships seek recognition of their new situation and pastoral support by asking members of the clergy to provide a blessing for them in the context of an act of worship. The Church expresses what it believes through the liturgy of its worship. As there is no theological consensus about same sex unions, no such liturgy is authorised.”

Let’s start with your comments about the Conservative Party.  What kind of politics is this?  How on earth do you know how David Cameron, who has very liberal views on homosexuality, will behave as Prime Minister on these issues?  What gives you the right to make blanket generalisations that many Conservative MPs will find deeply offensive?  You’re talking as if all Labour MPs are somehow whiter-than-white and fully support homosexuality and recent legislation in this area, in which case you are clearly living in some fantasy land because many Labour and Lib Dem MPs are religious and are therefore highly unlikely to support gay marriages.  Aside from your borderline slanderous remarks about the Conservative Party, your remarks about gay marriages are even more shameful.  All your ‘friends’ can call a civil partnership whatever the hell they like - I couldn’t care less.  Marriage is a religious institution, whether you like it or not.  As such, religions set the rules, not you.  Civil partnerships should afford homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples (bar child-related issues, I suppose) but it should never ever ever become a ‘marriage’ because religions explicitly forbid marriages between people of the same gender.  What is so complicated about this?  We also had Peter Tatchell saying this morning that the civil partnerships introduced by Labour for same-sex couples were “a form of sexual apartheid” because they institutionalised different marriage laws for heterosexual and homosexual people.  If there are any differences in terms of the legal status between civil partnerships and marriage then I’m more than happy to listen and discuss, but this aggressive and wholly disrespectful anti-religious agenda is appalling. 

I am not even vaguely religious and neither are my family, yet even I can see how unnecessary and inflammatory your comments are.  Ironically enough, your barbed remarks about Conservative MPs come on the same day as Gordon Brown has criticised “crude” personal attacks in politics, saying that people should “think twice” before making accusations.  Sadly, it is quite clear to me that even if homosexual and heterosexual couples still had exactly the same financial and legal existence, you were still be attacking the institution of marriage for what I can only assume to be punitive and selfish reasons, and I find that very sad.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Thursday

1. Sharpe’s Opinion thinks that Guido might need lessons in how to avoid plagiarism.

2. The Last Ditch explains why Britain is the ‘political lies’ capital of Europe.

3. Mark Wadsworth dissects some dodgy statistics on housing for immigrants.

4. Ranting Stan has a good rant about hypersensitivity in society.

5. Dick Puddlecote says that the BNP and ExxonMobil are not really that different.




Quote of the day

“We will never know if the (future) decision of the constitutional court was the fruit of a total independent evaluation or was rather the fruit of a carbonara dinner.”

- Antonio Di Pietro, a former anti-corruption prosecutor and the head of the Italy of Values opposition party, speaking after it emerged that Silvio Berlusconi had dinner with a judge who will rule on whether the law that gives the prime minister immunity from criminal prosecution should be allowed.  Mr Berlusconi pushed the controversial law through parliament shortly after being elected prime minister for a third time in general elections last year. It guarantees immunity from prosecution for Italy’s four most senior office holders while they are in power — himself as prime minister, the Italian president and the speakers of both parliamentary chambers.  It has now emerged that Mr Berlusconi was entertained to dinner at the home of a constitutional court judge, Luigi Mazzella, last month. The court is deliberating the legality of the law and is expected to deliver its decision in the autumn. Also at the dinner was a colleague of Mr Mazzella, Paolo Maria Napolitano, as well as the Justice Minister Angelino Alfano, who pushed the bill through parliament. Mr Di Pietro has demanded the resignation of both judges and the justice minister.




At last, a sensible feminist!

Dear Darryn Walker,

Although it didn’t cause much of a ripple in the mainstream media, the end of your court case this week concluded a rather uncomfortable saga for bloggers around the country.  You were cleared of breaching the Obscene Publications Act with a story that you wrote about Girls Aloud on an internet site, which described in graphic detail the kidnap, torture, murder and mutilation of the five band members.  The implications of a successful prosecution would have huge, but even though the case against you withered away it still leaves behind a slightly sour taste.

Obscenity laws are rarely used, especially for content on the internet, and where they are invoked, it is almost always images, not words, that are the subject.  The standard in such cases is whether the material is likely “to deprave or corrupt those reading or viewing it”, but historically this has proved very hard to meet.  The Obscene Publications Act was most famously used in 1960 against Penguin Books after it published the controversial novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover.  It has also been used against the editors of satirical magazine Oz in 1971 after a children’s issue was published featuring a cartoon of Rupert Bear having sex, as well as to attack the publishers of Inside Linda Lovelace – a book about the life of a porn star – in 1976 and to ban David Britton’s graphic and violent book Lord Horror in the early 1990s.  Nevertheless, in each case the publishers were found not guilty or the ban was overturned within a matter of months.  In fact, the Metropolitan Police reportedly gave up hopes of any future prosecutions under the Act after Inside Linda Lovelace was approved, believing that if that was not obscene then nothing was!  The article that you penned was certainly not in the same mould as these previous cases, although accusations of obscenity are understandable.  You prefaced your 12-page story – called Girls (Scream) Aloud – with a disclaimer, saying that your words were “imaginary descriptions” of “a world in which women are disposable sex objects that exist solely for the pleasure of men”.  You also insisted his work was “strictly fictitious” and should not be “re-enacted in any way”.  But, despite these disclaimers, you were arrested in February 2008 after the story was spotted by online protection charity the Internet Watch Foundation.  It tipped off the police, but because the website in question was hosted overseas the foundation had no power to act.  A spokeswoman explained that while there is international agreement on what is illegal when it comes to images of child sex abuse, there is no such consensus on what constitutes criminally obscene material in general. 

It didn’t take long for some feminists to use your court case to remind the world how persecuted they are.  Feminist campaigner Julie Bindel believes it is time to get rid of the Obscene Publications Act altogether.  “What we’ve got in this country is a double standard,” she told the BBC News website.  “We have laws against incitement to racial and religious hatred, but none for incitement to sexual hatred. And that’s exactly what pornography and these sorts of stories do – peddle an image of women as gagging for it, enjoying pain, and that encourages men to treat them that way. We need new legislation to protect women, then we could do away with these old-fashioned obscenity laws.”  Yes, of course Julie.  Women need protecting from their evil male overlords who force them into pornography against their free will, and women never watch or purchase porn nor do they ever mistreat men. *roll eyes* Actually, she was right about one thing – we do have a double standard on hatred laws.  My solution? Scrap all the hatred laws, then we have no double standards.  Thankfully, I was buoyed by reading the infinitely more sensible reaction from another feminist.  A spokeswoman for campaign group Feminists Against Censorship, Avedon Carol, said this attempted prosecution represented a dangerous precedent and would be counter-productive if its intention was to tackle violent attitudes towards women.  “Rape and murder predate the printing press by a long way.  If we want to address misogyny, we need to speak about it openly and honestly. Censorship isn’t going to make it disappear.”  Well said.  Censorship of articles like yours would not only be impossible to enforce but would also not address the cause of such attitudes.  Your defence counsel Tim Owen said that writing of the sort that you produced was “widely available in an unregulated and uncensored form.  In terms of its alleged obscenity, it is frankly no better or worse than other articles.”  While I’m not necessarily proud of this statement, it is undoubtedly true. 

Defining what constitutes ‘obscene’ is always fraught with difficulty, be it words or images or otherwise.  I can only assume that you have a few screws loose for wanting to publish something so disgusting online, but this article resulting in a criminal trial is not the way to go.  I have no respect for your actions whatsoever.  Even so, I am glad that this case died away for everyone’s sake.  And, on a personal note, may I just add that anyone who wishes to get rid of Cheryl Cole clearly needs their head tested as she is a bona-fide smoking-hot hottie.  Moron.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Wednesday

1. A View From Middle England laughs at Labour’s latest favourite euphemism.

2. Leg Iron enjoys watching (Ed) Balls get bounced on TV.

3. Hatfield Girl says Germany may have given Cameron a glimmer of hope on the Lisbon Treaty.

4. Constantly Furious gives Peter Mandelson’s latest moan a good fisking.

5. Raedwald explains how the Labour killjoys are ruining music in the UK.




Quote of the day

“Keep the river flowing.”

- Dr David Greening from Sydney IVF, delicately describing his new advice that men should have sex every day to improve sperm quality and boost the chance of getting a partner pregnant.  In his study of men with fertility problems, daily ejaculation for a week cut the amount of DNA damage seen in sperm samples.  Although there was a big drop in sperm numbers from 180 million to 70 million over the week, men were still within the normal “fertile” range and sperm also became more active with a small rise in motility.  Sadly, he warned that having daily sex for too long – say a fortnight – would probably cut sperm numbers too much but nevertheless recommended “lots of sex daily” around the time the woman is ovulating.  “We are designed to breed in our youth. Perhaps we have been blaming the women as couples get older but perhaps there’s a contribution from the male because we’re not behaving as we should be, ” he said.

 




Is jail time for crooked MPs really the answer?

Dear Jack Straw,

It seems that a fairly large portion of humble pie is in order today after Labour were forced to drop plans for a legally-binding code of conduct for MPs after fears it would prompt legal challenges.  The idea had been a key part of your plans to “clean-up” politics after the expenses scandal, but former standards watchdog Sir Philip Mawer warned it was a recipe for “delay, cost and confusion”, but your desire to introduce jail sentences for MPs who break the rules might still see the light of day.

Only three days of debate have been scheduled for the Parliamentary Standards Bill as the government wants it passed before MPs leave for the summer recess on 21 July, meaning that the shameful plans to set up an external body to run the MPs’ expenses system are still looking likely.  However, Sir Philip – former Parliamentary Standards Commissioner - told a separate inquiry into MPs’ expenses that a legally binding code of conduct could create a “rules-based system which lawyers will have a field day with and which may well cost the public more”.  The Clerk of the House – the Commons’ top official Malcolm Jack – has also warned of legal challenges to any code drawn up by MPs.  Although the bill passed its second reading with a majority of 290, MPs raised concerns that lack of sufficient scrutiny will lead to long-term damage to how the institution functions.  “There are some really serious issues about the role of Parliament in this bill and I am very worried that we are rushing it through,” Sir George Young, chairman of the committee on Standards and Privileges, said.  Earlier he said he wanted to be “held accountable to the ballot box, not to the courts, for what I do as an MP”.  However, you retorted that the measures had to be agreed quickly because of Parliament’s “collective” failure over expenses.  You have now agreed to drop a clause introducing a legally binding code of conduct on non-financial aspects of MPs’ behaviour which could have stipulated, for instance, how many surgery hours they offer.  Nevertheless, you refused to concede ground over the inclusion of three new criminal offences in the bill governing MPs’ financial dealings.  These would see fines and a potential 12-month jail sentence for MPs who are found to have knowingly made false claims, failed to fully declare outside financial interests or breached the rules on paid advocacy. “Having offences in this Bill are fundamental to its proper operation and, above all, fundamental to ensuring public confidence in this scheme,” you said. 

Several Tory MPs said the offences were unnecessary and redundant as the offences were already covered by existing laws on fraud and theft applicable to MPs.  No doubt the public want to see crooked MPs sent to jail for screwing the taxpayer, but I think we need to be careful here.  Making false expenses claims is surely a different matter from breaching the rules on paid advocacy, and in both cases there are varying degrees of dishonesty.  For example, an MP submitting a receipt for food which crossed off lots of items but accidentally left on a rogue toothbrush is a rather different animal from an MP avoiding £50,000 of capital gains tax.  The Daily Telegraph were right to publish the information that they had on MPs expenses but they made the mistake of mixing the worst offenders with those who hadn’t really done anything wrong.  Furthermore, Sir George Young makes an interesting point about being judged at the ballot box, because I am a huge supporter of ‘recall’ elections whereby an MP is forced to hold a by-election for their own seat if a certain number of constituents sign a petition to oust them on the grounds that they have engaged in inappropriate conduct – be it financial or otherwise.  An alternative approach would be to crack down on ‘deception’ within Parliament, and The Ministry of Truth have been running a campaign for some time now on this issue.  They created a campaign film that introduced legislation making it illegal for politicians to deliberately deceive the public.  Unfortunately, it is perfectly legal for MPs to deceive voters so they have set about creating a bill (which can be viewed HERE) that says MPs caught deliberately deceiving the public would be fined and banned from standing for election for up to 10 years.  This would be much broader than merely covering MPs expenses as it would extend to other parts of the work as well. 

Any system of fines and jail sentences is highly subjective in the sense that there is no steadfast method for quantifying the severity of offences.  Personally I find myself drawn more to recall elections than to banging people up in jail because it means the power lies with the public rather than Parliament.  If someone has committed fraud then by all means use the law to prosecute them and send them to prison, but issues such as breaking advocacy rules would presumably not be covered by the law and, along with a system of fines, I think recall elections are a wonderfully democratic way of dealing with these crooked MPs.  After all, it is surely the local constituents who should be the ultimate judge of our MPs, not the media or any shadowy Parliamentary authorities.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Tuesday

1. Counting Cats explains why Ed Balls is a warp-factor 9 giga-c***.

2. A Tangled Web finds that being gay trumps paedophilia in the eyes of the media.

3. Longrider is busy watching watermelons and getting angry at fake charities.

4. Mark Reckons that anti-scientific nonsense should be taken off the airwaves.

5. Capitalists at Work says Alistair Darling will resign on 21st July.




Quote of the day

“The impact of the scheme is accelerating.”

- Ian Austin MP, the government’s housing minister, trying to put a nice gloss on the news that just six families in England have been helped by the government’s £200m mortgage rescue scheme – up from two families in the previous month.  The initiative, launched at the start of 2009, aimed to help vulnerable families who are at risk of repossession to stay in their homes.  Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that the time it took to access assistance was “extraordinary”. The scheme allows not-for-profit housing associations to buy homes from people struggling to pay their mortgage and then allows them to continue living there by paying “affordable rent”. The government had said the scheme – introduced across England – could help up to 6,000 households which might otherwise face repossession.




Leave the BNP alone

Dear Nick Griffin,

My goodness me, you must be loving all this.  Talk about free publicity.  As if ‘Unite Against Fascism’ didn’t stimulate enough of a sympathy vote for your perfectly legitimate party, we now have the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) trying to change the law on race hate crimes just to make it easier to prosecute you – not anyone else, just you.

According to the Guardian, the threshold for securing a conviction is so high that evil far-right activists such as yourself (NB: we’ll ignore the ‘are they right-wing or left-wing’ debate for now) are able to evade prosecution for material that many people would consider to be threatening and racist.  Prosecutors blame the lack of convictions on the strict legal test, which requires showing an intention to “stir up racial hatred” or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.  The offence, created under the Public Order Act, only applies to acts that take place or are witnessed in public so it does not cover leaflets that are pushed through letter boxes. It also offers no protection against the publication of inaccurate or false information.  Several BNP leaflets have been referred to the CPS over the last five years by senior police officers and a judge but no further action has been taken.  Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers and a part-time judge, submitted a complaint last year over the following leaflet called The Changing Face of London:

bnp

“Under the law, it has been extremely difficult to mount a prosecution against extremism and hate speech,” said Herbert. “But with the rise of the BNP, and the subsequent rise in racist attacks and the fear the party’s leaflets can provoke, it is essential we are given the tools to deal effectively with this threat.” Herbert said the law should protect people from material that creates a fear of racist attacks as well as those that are deemed to incite racial hatred. “All the evidence suggests that it is people from minority communities and the faith communities that are put in fear of violence when racist leaflets are delivered in town centres or on estates. If someone handed out the same thing in the workplace, most employers would consider that gross misconduct; if someone does the same thing in the street, there is very little we can do.”  Another complaint was submitted to the CPS by Lancashire police who expressed concern about a BNP leaflet which blamed Muslims for the heroin trade. Four people were arrested and released on police bail last year but detectives are still waiting to hear from the CPS about whether they have grounds to prosecute for “incitement to stir up racial hatred”.  In another incident, Derbyshire police alerted the CPS about a BNP election leaflet claiming three asylum seekers had raped a woman. The police said the rape claims were “unfounded”, but the CPS said there were no grounds to prosecute under existing law. “Whilst those details in the leaflet regarding the alleged rape are factually incorrect, this in itself does not constitute a criminal offence,” said a CPS spokesman at the time.

You must be rolling about laughing when you hear this stuff.  Last week, we had the Equality and Human Rights Commission giving you one month to remedy three alleged breaches of the Race Relations Act, including your whites-only membership policy, and now we have the CPS considering changing the law just to persecute your democratically elected party.  Unbelievable.  But, far more disturbingly, the CPS are claiming that having a high threshold of evidence to secure a conviction is somehow a bad thing!!!  Actually, if they look closely at the last, say, few hundred years they will find that having a high threshold is a fundamental tenet of the entire British legal system – and thank god for that.  Stirring up hatred should indeed be illegal, but how does the above poster meet this criteria?  Yes, it’s clearly a biased representation but it’s hardly calling people to arms against Muslims.  The fact that the law on hatred doesn’t apply to leaflets might need remedying, but the high threshold for proving that hatred was the objective is essential.  If the BNP produce factually inaccurate material then your opponents are welcome to put out contradictory leaflets, call the local or national media or even take legal action if they wish – but it’s not the job of the CPS to start tampering with the law to make it easier to attack you.  And this creating ‘fear’  in town centres by delivering leaflets is without doubt the most pathetic ruse I have heard of from the anti-BNP brigade in recent months.  There are absolutely no grounds for them to be afraid of you in terms of personal safety, but yet again people claim to be offended or upset so Labour jump to the rescue of their core voters.

In his final remark, Herbert said a number of anti-racism and human rights bodies would back a change in the law.  “I expect a strong coalition will form around this idea and put pressure on the government to instigate a change in primary legislation as soon as possible,” he said.  He’s probably right.  That said, for the first time ever, the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight said something useful on this issue:  ”…the way we will defeat Nick Griffin and his party is street by street and estate by estate, not lawyer by lawyer and courtroom by courtroom.”  He’s figured it out, but sadly no-one else has - so you’re safe for now.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Monday

1. Moments of Clarity can hear large groans of despair from the Labour ranks.

2. Himmelgarten Cafe catches weight-loss surgeons giving dodgy advice.

3. Nanny Knows Best is unamused by Labour’s ‘heatwave’ scaremongering.

4. Tim Worstall is considering a sex change.

5. Man In A Shed explains why Labour are now ‘The Evil Party’.




Quote of the day

“This is not a matter of eating halal meat or seeking God’s blessing on one’s marriage. It is a challenge to what we believe to be the rights and freedoms of the individual, to our concept of a legal system based on what parliament enacts, and to the right of all of us to live in a society as free as possible from ethnic-religious division or communal claims to superiority and a special status that puts them in some respects above the law to which we are all bound.”

- Denis MacEoin, in the latest report by the ‘Civitas’ think-tank that investigated sharia courts in the UK.  The report claims that at least 85 sharia courts are currently in operation as a result of scores of unofficial courts sitting in mosques in which imams make judgments on day-to-day disputes and it argued that they are unlikely to treat women as equals and could even be against human rights law. Civitas have called for a change in the law to stop the decisions of such bodies being legally enforceable. (full story HERE)




BREAKING NEWS: Iain Dale encourages his readers to convert to Islam

Dear readers,

Having just visited Iain Dale’s blog, I must sadly report that he has suddenly decided to make it a personal mission to encourage his readers to convert to Islam.  His recent post on banning the burka sparked a huge debate in his comments section, much as it did when I addressed the issue on this blog.  However, the adverts now appearing on his blog seem to be some form of subliminal messaging aimed at enticing his readers into becoming Muslims.  The evidence is as follows:

EXHIBIT A:  When scrolling down the sidebar on Iain’s blog after reading his post on burkas, I was horrified to see that – contrary to the line that he took in his blogpost – he wants his readers to buy hijabs for themselves!! Outrageous!!  The low prices available on eBay are clearly an attempt by Iain to promote these garments to his readers on a national, if not international scale.

hijab ebay 2

EXHIBIT B: As if trying to get his readers to buy hijabs wasn’t bad enough, he is also pushing his readers towards Muslim dating agencies.  Just above his original blogpost rallying against the burka, Iain Dale has the cheek to advertise an agency for single Muslims using a picture of a woman with her face covered!!  Outrageous!!

single muslim

EXHIBIT C: Then, would you believe it, I log back onto Iain’s blog a short while later, only to see this new advert instead:

hijab shop

I shall be contacting Mr Dale as a matter of urgency to express my disgust at these shameless antics that rely on psychological manipulation and covert advertising techniques.  He should know better.

Regards

A.Tory

————-

P.S. Let this be a warning to all those who use contextual advertising…..




More gay rights madness

Dear Rob Davies,

As a spokesman for Canterbury council, I’m sure you were delighted with the ruling of Local Government Ombudsman last week.  After a complaint from local gay rights activists that sparked a two-month investigation costing thousands of pounds, the council were told that it is ’sufficiently gay’ as it does enough to promote homosexual culture.  While I am very glad that you did not find yourself in any great trouble over this, I find it deeply disturbing that the situation arose in the first place.

As part of the investigation, the council had to prove its inclusiveness by giving details of “touring plays and musicals, for example, which would be of interest to the LGBT community”.  It also had to show that it had “put forward suggestions for small events that it might help fund, as well as proposals for other events such as exhibitions”.  The Local Government Ombudsman – who asked for the city’s council to provide evidence of how it supported the gay community – said it was satisfied the pink pound was being catered for.  In response to this, you said: “Obviously we’re delighted with the outcome of the investigation. We feel we do a great deal for the gay community in Canterbury and we have always tried to support various gay events and promotions. But at the same time it is not the duty of any council to set up a gay bar – that’s not what councils do.”  The two-month investigation began at the end of April after a letter was sent from two representatives of Pride in Canterbury.  Chairman Andrew Brettell lodged a formal complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman claiming his initial letter to the council in November fell on deaf ears. Mr Brettell, in his 60s, said last month: “We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city. The impression I get is that the council just doesn’t want to know. I get the feeling it is precious because Canterbury has a cathedral and history. I think they think the gay community will turn it into Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Needless to say, I think the Ombudsman made a very rational decision.  But, wait a minute, why is the local council under any obligation to support the gay community?  Since when is it appropriate to use taxpayers’ money to set up exhibitions and events that are solely aimed at homosexuals?  What about me?  What do I get instead?  You’re absolutely right that it is not the job of a council to set up gay bars, but why should the council be spending money on promoting anything that knowingly and deliberately excludes a huge proportion of the population?  What would happen if a council set up events, concerts and exhibitions just for blokes and totally excluded the interests of women? What would happen if a council put on plays and musicals that were only aimed at white people?  They would be metaphorical blood on the streets.  I’ve often heard the argument that local government should support things like gay pride marches and ‘multicultural’ events because they help local businesses and attract people to the area, but if this was actually the case then there is still no reason for the council to spend a penny of our taxes on it because it should be the responsibility of local businesses to organise the event seeing as they gain so much from it.  After a quick Google search, I learned that Boris Johnson has been criticised for withdrawing funding for Soho Pride as well as dropping Ken Livingstone’s support for the LGBT museum in London and the capital’s hosting of the ‘Gay Games’, but he is absolutely right to do so – it is not the business of government, either local or national, to fund such activities.  This is why I also support his cut in funding for Jewish festivals, Black History Month and refugee festivals that exclude huge swathes of the population at considerable expense to the taxpayer.

The situation that your council, and indeed many other councils, found yourself in comes down to one simple issue: there is a big, big, big difference between what taxpayers could pay for and what taxpayers should pay for.  Labour have used taxpayers’ money to push their own agenda in a disgusting manner, including the superficial and poorly evidenced ‘equality’ campaign led by Harriet Harman, but it goes much deeper than this.  Indeed, councils and businesses are now under the constant shadow of legal action unless they actively ‘promote’ minority groups.  Discrimination against the gay community or any other minority group should never ever be tolerated, but then again neither should handing over my taxes for them to listen to their favourite musical.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




Quote of the day

“The welfare state is meant to be a safety net, but in some areas it seems to be growing into an extremely comfortable armchair.”

- Matthew Elliot from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, reacting to the news that a family living on benefits in London is being housed in a seven-bedroom home at a cost to taxpayers of £147,000 a year. Until last year, adults who were unemployed or on very low incomes were able to claim means-tested Housing Benefit (HB) to cover their rent in either council-owned or privately-rented properties. Last year a new benefit, Local Housing Allowance (LHA), replaced HB for tenants in privately-rented properties. In the current financial year, a total of £2.6 billion is expected to be paid out in LHA. The two benefits together support 4.4 million tenants and their dependents. This year the total sum handed out in welfare benefits is expected to reach £165 billion – significantly more than the £140 billion that the state will raise from workers in income tax. (full story HERE)




The latest policies from Labour are just an admission of failure

From the BBC, over the last two days:

BRITAIN-POLITICS

“Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne said there was the need for a “power shift” away from civil servants and towards the public. The Guardian reports that the shake-up in public services will include entitlements to personal tuition in schools, minimum GP waiting times and access to police working in their neighbourhoods. Mr Byrne told the BBC the top-down, targets-led approach was good for transforming services from poor to good, but now a new strategy is required.”

BRITAIN-POLITICS/

“The government is to dismantle one of its most significant education policies in primary schools in England. From 2011 schools will no longer have to rely on centralised national strategies for support in teaching literacy and numeracy. Instead they will have money to choose from other suppliers or work together to improve pupils’ basic skills. The strategies had been needed to get school leaders to focus on improving standards – but they could now choose for themselves how best to spend the money these were costing.”

So, let’s get this straight – running the NHS through targets and running our schools through top-down, centralised teaching programmes was the right approach from 1997-2009, but now it’s not the right approach.  Hmmm.  So the Government expect us to believe that Whitehall dictating and distorting our health service and education system was ever a good thing, and they also expect us to believe that Gordon Brown’s fight for political survival just happens to coincide with the supposedly natural end of two policies that were always doomed to fail since they were created over ten years ago? 

When David Cameron says at PMQs that the Prime Minister is taking us all for fools, he really isn’t kidding.




First Class posts on Saturday

1. Prodicus says Labour’s new ‘winds of change’ are in fact just a bad case of wind.

2. Croydonian takes a look at the French view of anonymous blogging.

3. John Ward wishes Gordon Brown a happy two-year Prime Ministerial birthday.

4. Pub Philosopher is annoyed that the bankers really have got away with it.

5. Devil’s Kitchen finds change that he really can’t believe in, courtesy of Obama.




Review – The Triumph of the Political Class by Peter Oborne


triumph

Seeing as the MP expenses scandal has gripped the nation and throttled Westminster in a way that has rarely been seen before in British politics, I thought it was appropriate to select a book written before the scandal broke that claims to detail how politicians from all parties have made a mockery of Parliament and our democracy.  I remember Guido writing a post during ‘Smeargate’ that heralded the work of three journalists who had made it their mission to crack the Westminster shell and expose what lies beneath when every other hack was busy kissing the Government’s rear end: Fraser Nelson, Martin Bright and Peter Oborne.  Fully in the knowledge that Peter Oborne – who writes for the Daily Mail in addition to writing books - has always been seen as a bit eccentric (having met him briefly, I can assure you that ‘eccentric’ is the right description), I thought it would be fascinating to see what he has been rallying against for so many years.   When Peter refers to the ‘The Political Class’, he is not just describing the current Labour government or their predecessors.  The Political Class is a reference to politicians and those around them involved in running the country who are set apart from the rest of society by possessing their own customs, habits, codes and - dare I say - superiority complex that distinguishes them from others, in addition to them doing everything possible to maintain the status quo along with all the perks that come with it.  While the recent MP expenses saga is certainly a damning symptom of the Political Class, the sad truth is that this is the tip of the political iceberg, and the way that these individuals have distorted democracy itself is absolutely shocking. 

In order to demonstrate the scale of corruption that the Political Class has implanted into our political system, Peter Oborne split this book, written in 2007, into four sections.  First comes ‘The Anatomy of the Political Class’ that describes their defining traits.  This includes some of the previous expenses scandals, the appalling behaviour that accompanies membership of the Political Class (e.g. John Prescott using his Parliamentary office to continue his affair), the arrogance and dismissive attitude towards anyone who complains about their behaviour and the undesirable outcomes of ‘professionalising’ politics and ‘modernising’ the parties (e.g. dodgy party funding).  Second comes ‘The Attack on British Institutions’, which I found particularly disturbing.  The Civil Service being robbed of its independence, the Foreign Office being undermined (particularly in the period before Blair declared war on Iraq), the politicisation of MI6, attacks on the Judiciary and the monarchy, and the systematic crippling of Parliamentary supremacy are all laid out in horrific detail.  The brutal and coordinated attack mounted by the Political Class on Elizabeth Filkin, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, when she was on the verge of exposing their greed, bullying, deception and corruption in 1999 was a truly disturbing tale.  The recent campaign by the Daily Telegraph to expose similar behaviour, and indeed ‘Smeargate’ itself, are rather put into perspective when one reads about how vicious the Political Class can be when they feel threatened.  The third section, ‘The Capture of the Media’, is perhaps the least shocking yet the most unexpectedly revealing part of the whole book.  ‘Client Journalism’ – the way that journalists rely almost exclusively on the Government for their stories and do not challenge their version of events – is something that Guido, Peter Oborne and many others (myself included) find grotesque.  Given the choice of attacking the Government or sticking to the ‘official line’, even when the latter flatly contradicts what they know to be true, journalists crumble in the face of political pressure all too easily.  The public are without doubt the biggest losers of this submissive behaviour.  The way that the media failed to stand up to Blair in the lead-up to the Iraq War is given particular attention and, on the basis of what Peter uncovered, deservedly so.  The final section of the book, ‘A New System of Government’ draws together the main threads of the book and explains the fundamental reasons why the Political Class continue to distort and dictate whatever they choose in order to preserve their position of power, and also goes some way to explaining how we could solve such a deep-rooted problem.

I’m sure that many people will have felt angry, let-down and even betrayed by what we now know our MPs have been doing with their expenses in recent years.  That said, I can guarantee that any anger or sense of betrayal that you feel will be multiplied a thousand times once you’ve read this book.  There are few things more sacred in this country than having a healthy, functioning democracy with accountability and honesty at its core.  Although few would argue that we ever fully realised this ideal, Peter Oborne manages to show that we are even further away from this ideal that you could possibly imagine.  The only minor quibble I had with this book was that some of Peter’s arguments could probably be challenged in terms of their implications.  Even so, I still feel both furious and sullied after reading this book because it shattered so many of the beliefs and principles that I hoped Parliament and indeed politics itself would stand for – and that’s despite my own incredible cynicism towards all things political.  What a book. 

RATING: 9/10

This is the fifth of many reviews that I will be doing on this blog. Every book I review plus the books that I will be reviewing in future are taken from ‘My Political Bookshelf’ that you can see on the right hand side of this blog in the sidebar. Click on the picture at the beginning of this review or click on any of the books in the sidebar to find out more about them.

CLICK HERE TO READ PREVIOUS BOOK REVIEWS ON THIS BLOG




First Class posts on Friday

1. Fausty attacks Gordon Brown’s latest plan to undermine Parliament and democracy.

2. Diary of a Geek analyses Greenpeace’s reaction to Michael Jackson’s death.

3. Nourishing Obscurity enjoys some nice fatty food with a big dose of cholesterol.

4. Next Left explains why Michael Jackson will test the Iranian Twitter revolution.

5. The Adam Smith Institute can’t believe Jacqui Smith is still defending her expenses.




Quote of the day

“It’s clear that the criminals in this affair are the doctors who treated him throughout his career, who destroyed his face, who gave him medicine to ease his pain.  He was a hypochondriac and one never really knew if he was sick because he had become surrounded by charlatan doctors who were billing him thousands and thousands of dollars worth of drugs, vitamins.”

- Tarak Ben Ammar, Michael Jackson’s former producer and friend




Faith schools should be eliminated by the courts, not politicians

Dear United Synagogue,

Yesterday’s Appeal Court ruling that may force all Jewish Schools to change their admissions rules is to be welcomed.  You might not have agreed with their decision, but your behaviour was clearly out of order and discriminatory, demonstrating yet again why faith schools are so counterproductive when it comes to creating a tolerant, cohesive society.

The case surrounded a London school, the JFS, which rejected a boy whose mother’s conversion to Judaism it did not recognise.  Faith schools may discriminate on religious grounds but the Court of Appeal held that this particular rejection involved a test of ethnicity – which is unlawful.  The state-funded JFS is heavily over-subscribed and gives preference to applicants whose “Jewish status” is confirmed by the United Synagogue which requires that the mother be Jewish.  The boy – named in court only as M – has a Jewish father. His mother converted to the Jewish faith before he was born but had been a Roman Catholic, but the conversion was not recognised because it was conducted in a Progressive not an Orthodox synagogue.  The three judges said it was clear that Jews constituted a racial group defined principally by ethnic origin and additionally by conversion.  To discriminate against a person on the ground that they were or were not Jewish was therefore to discriminate on racial grounds.  “The motive for the discrimination, whether benign or malign, theological or supremacist, makes it no less and no more unlawful. The refusal of JFS to admit M was accordingly, in our judgment, less favourable treatment of him on racial grounds. This does not mean … that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined, and not on ethnicity.”  You responded to this by saying that the ruling will have “a very serious effect” and added: “In future, all Jewish schools (whether state or independent) will need to adopt a religious practice test, until such time as the Court of Appeal’s ruling is successfully overturned or a legislative amendment is made.”

Rather than go over the same old ground with regards to faith schools driving wedges between different groups in society, I am intrigued as to how the hell you still get away with existing on legal grounds.  For example, you might remember the recent story of a school secretary who was fired after her daughter expressed her Christian beliefs in class, which unwittingly revealed that the General Teaching Council (the teaching profession’s regulator) has published a new draft code of conduct that all teachers will have to sign.  Principle 4 of this code states that teachers must “proactively challenge discrimination” and “promote equality and value diversity in all their professional relationships and interactions”.  How exactly does this square with the existence of faith schools?  How can a teacher possibly claim to be ‘proactively challenging discrimination’ when their entire school is evidence of such behaviour?  There is also the issue of employment law.  The Dutch government recently called for help after a Christian primary school in the town of Emst suspended a teacher who came out as gay.  Article One of the Dutch constitution said “all persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.”  Dutch law also says that even schools which treat the Bible as their foundation are not allowed to discriminate against a teacher for the “single fact” of his or her sexual orientation, but the Council of State – the highest advisory body in the Netherlands – is now suggesting that this should be scrapped and religious schools may exclude homosexual teachers whose behaviour violates the school’s values, even if it takes place in their private life.  A group lobbying for Christian education told a Dutch paper that traditionalist schools should have the freedom to refuse employment to homosexual teachers, as well as heterosexual couples living together without being married, as “their lifestyle does not square with the Bible”.  There was also support from an organisation representing Islamic schools, whose representative said “Judaism, Christianity and Islam disapprove of acting gay…. If that is what you are, apply at a different school”.

What is this?  Is this some kind of sick joke?  Firing people because of their sexuality is becoming legal?  Teachers in faith schools are allowed to discriminate just to keep the religious lobby happy?  Is this really the society that we want?  Is this really going to halt the social meltdown that we are facing in this country?  It is worth remembering that intolerance and bigotry give rise to organisations such as the BNP, who thrive on divisive issues.  While faith schools may not be on their radar right now, forcing communities apart and breeding ignorance are precisely what fuels the fire of misunderstanding and racial loathing.  Congratulations – I hope you’re really proud of what you’re doing to society.

Yours disrespectfully,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Thursday

1. Tory Radio describes some of the appalling abuse of expenses by BBC staff.

2. Ambush Predator adds another nail to Gordon’s coffin.

3. Lobbydog finds a spectacular u-turn by Harriet Harman over Parliamentary reform.

4. Old Holborn enjoys insulting the state, while others sadly disapprove.

5. The Appalling Strangeness wants politicians to do something useful for a change.




Quote of the day

“It was a mistake. It demonised millions and was an illiberal move.”

- Labour MP Tom Harris on the smoking ban




Obama cannot resist a nice new tax

Dear Barack Obama,

Despite the economic downturn, you are still rightly committed to creating a universal health insurance system in America.  Seeing as it formed the backbone of your election platform, voters would not be particularly impressed if you walked away from such a bold plan.  Even though your reforms could save over one trillion dollars in the long run, implementing your mandatory insurance system won’t come cheap.  Thankfully, the answer to your financial prayers has come in the form of a new tax on soft drinks and alcohol.

The Democrats unveiled a draft of your health care bill last week. It requires all individuals to obtain health insurance and forces employers to offer health care to their workers, with exemptions for small businesses.  You are now considering a 10 cents tax on the price of a can of soft drink to help pay for your reforms as well as higher alcohol taxes and a national sales tax of up to 1.5% or mor. The new federal tax on soft drinks would cover those sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other high-calorie sweeteners, including iced tea and non-carbonated drinks like punch, but exempting diet drinks.  Although this plan has not been finalised, it has the potential to raise about $600 billion over 10 years, which could prove invaluable over the rest of your term as President while you put your plans into action.  Experience suggests that the new taxes will be passed onto consumers rather than being absorbed by the businesses themselves.  Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, but the main beverage lobby that represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and other companies said such a tax would unfairly hit lower-income Americans and wouldn’t deter consumption.

‘Sin taxes’ are a brilliant prospect, in my opinion.  As evidenced in yesterday’s discussion of paying for obese people to get treatment courtesy of the taxpayer on the NHS, the issue of personal responsibility is something that many people feel is missing from society.  The sad reality is that it often holds true that the unhealthiest food can be the cheapest – fast food and fizzy drinks being prime examples of this.  That said, taxing an entire range of food is a stupid idea and will end unnecessarily stigmatising individual products that don’t actually damage anyone’s health.  However, foods that are high in saturated fats or ‘trans-fats’ are known to cause serious health problems, while fizzy drinks that are high in particular ingredients such as sweeteners are also widely regarded as leading to all sorts of ailments, both dental and medical.  Sin taxes are therefore an excellent way of ‘rebalancing the scales’ while still allowing each individual the choice over what they eat and drink, which is infinitely preferable to banning things.  The point is that the cost of purchasing the most unhealthy food and drinks does not reflect the costs that they create for healthcare systems, and that is where sin taxes such as a ‘fat tax’ come in. 

Because the need to raise money and lower debt during this economic downturn has become a huge priority not just for you but also for most developed nations, I wholeheartedly support your proposal to start taxing these items.  Higher alcohol taxes and a new national sales tax are much more objectionable because they do not tackle health issues.  Even a tax as small as 10 cents could raise significant sums of money at the same time as deterring people from engaging in behaviour that can incur significant costs to the US taxpayer over many years.  If Gordon Brown in the UK decided to introduce similar measures to help fund the NHS, I would (grudgingly) support him because the principle is absolutely correct. 

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Wednesday

1. Raedwald is livid with Gordon Brown’s plans for a new parliamentary quango.

2. Man In A Shed says the debates over burkhas and the BNP show the limits of tolerance.

3. Ranting Stan supports David Davis’s call for more grammar schools.

4. The Great Simpleton describes how the state can steal politicians’ houses.

5. A Very British Dude thinks Bercow’s debut at PMQs was not good enough.




Quote of the day

“Why hone your skills on punch bags and planks of wood when you can deck some Chavs?  Welcome to the wonderful world of Chav Flighting. A world where Bacardi Breezers are your sword and ASBOs are your trophy.”

- part of an advertisement by ‘Gymbox’, which runs three fitness centres in London, that was investigated by advertising watchdogs after it promoted classes in how to beat up “chavs”. Gymbox offers the courses to train men and women how to defend themselves from street attacks, but the Advertising Standards Authority launched an investigation after people complained that the flier condoned violence against certain members of society. In response, Gymbox said it had named the class “Chav Fighting” to draw attention to the courses in “witty manner”.  In the end, the ASA did not uphold the complaints, stating that references to Bacardi Breezer alcopops and Burberry clothing indicated the concept was “tongue-in-cheek”.  Gymbox’s website still advertises the classes, complete with a video showing a hooded youth attacking a couple in an alleyway, only to be flattened by the man. Its website states: “Don’t give moody grunting Chav’s an ASBO, give them a kicking. Forget stealing candy from a baby. We’ll teach you how to take a Bacardi off a hoodie and turn a grunt into a whine. Welcome to Chav Fighting, a place where the punch bags gather dust and the world is put to rights.”




Britain’s fattest teen wants you to pay for her treatment

Dear Georgia Davis,

I suppose congratulations are in order.  At 15 years old and weighing 33 stone (210kg), you were dubbed Britain’s fattest teen. After winning a scholarship to an American weight loss camp last year, you have lost 14 stone (89kg), almost half your body weight. However, at age 16 the funding for your treatment is running out and you want the British taxpayer to pick up the tab, leaving me distinctly unamused.

Your overeating began at a very young age when your dad died.  ”I was letting my emotions control me. I was always upset, so every time I got upset I would comfort eat.”  As well as family pressures, you started to experience problems at school where you were bullied, and your comfort eating continued. “I would eat pretty much all day. I would eat everything, any kind of food.” Bread – up to three-quarters of a loaf a day – milk, cola, crisps, chocolate biscuits and cakes were particular favourites.  “It made me feel better for a minute or two, but then I’d feel down again, so I’d eat again, and it would just continue on and on.”  Your mother found your habits impossible to control. By the time you were 15, you had reached 33 stone (210kg), and you were a UK size 38.  At 5′6, you were morbidly obese.  But after nine months at the Wellspring Academy, an American fitness school which awarded you a scholarship, you weigh under 19 stone (121kg) and are a size 20.  Your calorie consumption has gone down from around 13,000 a day to around 1,200 thanks to your new routine.  ”It’s a structured day. It helps you control your life accordingly. Basically, you wake up around 6.30 and you go to morning activity for about an hour. Once you’ve done that, you go to breakfast and then you have school and basic classes. Then you have lunch in between classes, and then more activity and then dinner, free time and then more activity before you go to bed.”  You credit cognitive behavioural therapy with helping you understand the reasons for overeating and learning how to control it.  The school says you need to complete another year to lose weight and keep it off, but that it can only fund her until Christmas.  Mike Davidson of the Wellspring Academy said: “Georgia is still about 8 stone from her healthy weight and has not dealt with all of her emotional needs or unlocked the habits around her eating yet that could cause her to relapse. She needs more time.”  The NHS, after initially refusing to provide the estimated £23,000 needed, is now reviewing its decision.  “I want to help as many people as I can, because during this time I’ve been doing this academy, I’ve realised that there are so many people out there with the same problem that I have. And I think that if I can do this with the NHS, if they fund me, then the NHS will help fund others… so that other people will be happy and normal too.”

Hmmm.  There are three issues running around my head: personal responsibility, opportunity cost and value-for-money.  On the subject of personal responsibility, you’re asking the taxpayer to stump up £23,000 because you eat too much.  Wellspring Academy has already given you an effective rountine and helped you understand why you are overeating, so surely the argument in favour of you needing this money is weakened by the existence of the scholarship?  And how long do you expect the taxpayer to fork out for your treatment?  What if another £23,000 isn’t enough and you still want more treatment once the next course runs out?  At what point is it your responsibility to tackle this issue (assuming that it isn’t your responsibility right now, which is debatable)?  The opportunity cost of what you are asking is also staggering.  How many heart bypass operations could £23,000 fund?  How many Intensive Care beds could be supported with that amount of money?  You are asking for a staggering sum, all because your willpower isn’t strong enough. Finally, value for money is a double-edged sword.  There is a part of me that thinks handing over £23,000 because you cannot control your eating is outrageous, but then I wonder whether an investment now might save the taxpayer money in the long run relative to other treatments that your excessive weight might demand in future.  Then again, even if it might prevent future expenditure on your obesity, there are still major objections purely on the grounds that eating is a choice whereas so many of the other illnesses that the NHS treats are not the responsibility of the patient in any way.

If this ‘test case’ does indeed find in your favour, the NHS is going to have a seriously big problem on its hands.  For every obese person to be entitled to massive sums of taxpayers’ money just because they are unable to resist stuffing their faces would be deeply concerning on both financial and moral grounds.  The message would be broadcast loud and clear: destroy your body through excessive eating as much as you want, but don’t worry – the taxpayer will pay for whatever you need to bring your weight down again.  Personally, I’d much rather see the money put into bereavement counselling and other preventative measures than giving it to fatties who fail to show the willpower that most of us manage to draw on every day of our lives.

Yours sincerely,

A.Tory




First Class posts on Tuesday

1. Heresy Corner says John Bercow’s election shows politics at its worst.

2. Blue Eyes is very confused about the latest strikes in the oil industry.

3. Dick Puddlecote catches a rare outbreak of common sense among politicians.

4. Daniel1979 explains why spit and bile from the public can be quite handy.

5. Not A Sheep is not impressed by weather propoganda from the Met Office.