"Democracy Is A Minority Issue"

Both Autonomous Mind and Richard North have superb pieces on the arrogance of local councils, specifically Brighton and Hove, and their refusual to hold a referendum on any proposed council tax increase:

The referendum rule is mad. It’s not really workable and would cost about £300,000 to run.

As AM notes:

There you have it.  A sitting councillor who no doubt prattles on about ‘democracy’ and the ‘wishes of the people’ when trying to get elected, declaring that having to seek our democratic consent for a raid on our personal wealth, is unworkable.  In other words, the council should be allowed to demand what it likes and to hell with what residents think.

Quite. Though I guess there is one positive outcome - it is clear validation of at least one of the Harrogate Demands of "no taxes or spending without consent". Local councils would not be so vigorously against the idea of referendums if they did not work.

Arrogance and a sense of entitlement. Recently an acquaintance of mine has had a similar experience courtesy of Oxfordshire County Council via email albeit on a rather more modest issue than one of spending our own money.

As I noted in May the recent local elections saw the Conservatives lose control of Oxfordshire County Council which lead to one of the incumbent Tory councillors losing his temper at the count. Four Independents were elected but after the election three of the four opted to form a “Conservative – Independent Alliance” (Lynda Atkins for Wallingford, Mark Grey for Benson and Cholsey and former Labour Councillor Les Sibley for Bicester West), thus ensuing that the Conservatives would retain effective control of the council after a deal had been struck:

The alliance means the independents will support the election of Tory leader Ian Hudspeth on Tuesday and add their weight to the party’s budgets for the next four years, but they will not sit in the cabinet. 

Occurring as it did after the election had taken place meant the deal had no reference to the electorate's wishes and certainly had no mandate on which the independents were elected (interestingly the only independent who has remained so and upheld his promises is the one that represents me - but then I know where he lives).

The leader of this independent grouping (if that is not an oxymoron) is Lynda Atkins (from Wallingford) and she has publicly stated, in what is an attempt at some sort of a defence, the following (my emphasis):

It’s not an administration, it’s not a coalition, we’re calling it an alliance. We’re not joining the Tories. This is something which fits the current circumstances, something that will work right here and right now.

We believe that what we have done is very much in the best interests of our constituents and all the other residents of Oxfordshire. I think we always have to go back to our voters and explain our decisions, and this will be no exception.

A crucial element in explaining to voters decisions that have been made is to have the voting records of local councillors made as a matter of public record. I'm not sure how well known this is but there is no statutory requirement for councillors to record their votes. Conversely it is a matter of public record just how our MPs vote in Parliament (and indeed the EU Parliament as well) but there is apparently no such equivalent requirement for county councillors to demonstrate transparency to their electorates.

There is the option at county council for someone to publicly wish for their vote to be recorded in the minutes but crucially it is not compulsory - for most votes only the overall result is recorded. However, any councillor can ask for the way they voted to be added to the minutes. Similarly, if there's sufficient support among the councillors at a meeting, the votes of each member can be recorded.

As Oxfordshire County Council do not keep records of councillor voting records, not unreasonably due to the "deal" done, an enquiry was made via email to Lynda Atkins of which the following is an extract:

That in the interests of open, honest and transparent governance, you agreeing to the publication of your voting records is the only manner in which your electorates can have faith in your promises to hold the conservative minority administration to account.

After a delay in response and further promoting for a reply, Lynda Atkins eventually responded in a revealing manner (I publish her replies without permission in respect of her views of explaining decisions to the voters):

I prioritise emails and deal with non-urgent ones such as this when time allows, and am happy to take 3 or 4 days if that means I can focus on more urgent matters earlier.

The way in which County Council votes are taken is entirely different from that in Parliament, and recording who votes how is very cumbersome and time-consuming.  Yours is the only request I have ever come across (in 5 years on the County Council) for votes to be routinely recorded, so there does not seem to be a broad wish among residents for that to happen.  Given the problems of introducing a routine system of recording votes, I would not support it.

Intriguingly Atkins lets us know what she thinks are urgent issues as per the first paragraph, then makes assumptions on the "broad wishes" of residents (who actually may be unaware that votes are not recorded and would welcome them if informed that was the case), then with a flourish she decides that such a process would be "very cumbersome and time-consuming". Atkins presents no specific evidence of that of course and nor can she since she has no experience given Oxfordshire County Council do not implement such a system.

It's unacceptable that we have no public record of how councillors vote - using the excuse of cost to hide the workings of the council is simply arrogant, particularly in a public organisation with a budget of nearly £600 million. Ensuring transparency and accountability via voting records can be done relatively simply - for example recording such things in the minutes or by a method that the use of a piece of paper, pen and a pair of scissors cannot solve. The Ventnor Blog - Isle of Wight's local site - showed a possible low cost way in 2011:

We thought it would be helpful for you to know how your local councillor voted, so have built a system to let you know. We’ll endeavour to update it live as the votes are being taken.

Atkin's concerns therefore look suspiciously more like concealing her decision-making than a concern for public savings. Further reiterated by a subsequent email in response to one that pressed her on the above points:

All I can do is to repeat what I said previously, that you are the only person who has mentioned this as an issue.  I was not 'surprised' at your request, but I do believe that it is very, very much a minority view. 

Thus in the words of an "elected" councillor a moderate request for democracy becomes "very, very much a minority view".

Here we have a small number of councillors (three), holding the balance of power in Oxfordshire County Council who then refuse to let their electorates see just how they intend to support this failing council. Lynda Atkins' statement about “explaining decisions” is entirely worthless if she, and the rest, refuse to let the public know how they voted.

The Streisand Effect

The superb Witterings from Witney has got himself into a little local difficulty over what appears to be a dispute on comments made on a 3 year old blog piece.

Despite the hugely flattering legal comments to WfW that his blog is read by a 'large world wide target audience' one wonders who would have noticed the comments otherwise on a blog piece that was written years ago, on his old blog. Well we have now...

Good luck WfW

Because They Can...

With local elections looming, it's becoming clear that, rather than a temporary blip, the rise in Ukip's poll ratings is a little bit more concrete. Whether that turns into actual council seats in May is something we'll have to wait and see for. What's obvious though, as England Expects notes the rise in Ukip is enough to start rattling the TPTB:

This has brought forth a small deluge of mostly hostile commentary in the press, some from commentators, others from largely Conservative politicians. The insults have flown "Swivel eyed" etc, the condescension dripped. "'UKIP were relevant 15 years ago", said George Eustice MP on Newsnight, "But now we have a robust Eurosceptic as Prime Minister they are irrelevant".

The immediate default response to a perceived threat to the cosy consensus, is not to listen, but unsurprisingly to turn the guns on the little guy even if he represents largely majority views. England Expects darkly warns:

However I am certain that this will not be the last story of its sort. Birds have told me that an edict has gone out from the coalition headquarters to friendly editors that UKIP must be hit hard. So I expect that in the next couple of weeks we will see a few more stories like this, dredged up, polished and presented to the public.

Naturally the MSM will oblige albeit with an additional bizarre and contradictory mixture of hostility, bewilderment and belated 'chin-stroking-what-does-it-all-mean' commentary, such as this from Iain Martin in Standpoint (my emphasis):

This is not just a Conservative problem. All the large mainstream British parties are in trouble and do not know how to respond to deep unpopularity, public resentment and the erosion of traditional boundaries. The Conservative response seems to consist mainly of pointing out that Labour leader Ed Miliband and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg are more unpopular than David Cameron.

This seems to be more than just a blip. Those in the Westminster village who say that the British have long mistrusted their leaders are underestimating the scale of alienation and potential for further fragmentation in a system that is so widely mistrusted. Turnout at the last general election was only 65.1 per cent; until 2001, turnouts were above 70 per cent. Britons have long moaned that voting changes nothing, but a greater number believe it true enough to not bother taking part than did even 20 years ago.

Iain Martin gets it wrong. That the 'mainstream' British parties are in trouble is true, but they do know how to respond to the problem. They are perfectly aware of the public resentment and the causes for it. Opinion polls, canvassing, letters to MPs, focus groups all tell them the details, as do comments under MSM articles. Trevor Kavanagh in today's Sun notes regarding the threat to the Tories due to Ukip (my emphasis):

UKIP will do well in the 2014 European poll, but it would be bizarre if David Cameron allows it to pinch Tory votes in the General Election.

The PM could kill the threat stone dead.

All he needs is an IN-OUT referendum on Britain’s EU membership to be held at the same time as the General Election.

Cameron's 'phantom veto' last year lead to a dramatic poll rise for the Conservatives made it perfectly clear what it takes to respond to resentment. They know. So it's utterly revealing that Cameron et al don't kill the issue stone dead. The lack of response to public anger is not ignorance by the main parties, but through choice...and crucially it's a choice for them because they can. And therein lies all that is wrong with our system of government.

Democracy is often seen as a positive process, basically you vote for a party who is more likely to be on your side, whereas in my view it's a negative process - a power to vote them out to force them to listen. To paraphrase Lincoln;

"[the] government of the people, by the people, for the people...or else"

And it's the rapidly deteriorating power to prick the consensus means that sadly I'm coming to the conclusion that our system has gone beyond reform within. While I wish Ukip good luck in the local elections, in order to win they have to play the game - where the odds are very heavily stacked against them. Even if they managed to, eventually, form a coalition or even form a government they face a very hostile establishment which will hamper them all the way. Just leaving the Lisbon Treaty alone requires 2 years of negotiations - a daunting task for any party let alone one that is inexperienced in the process of government and dealing with a pro-EU civil service. Instead I increasingly feel we need a 'cold' reboot of the system.

And it's for this reason I will be an attendee at the meeting in July for the Old Swan Manifesto. Its outcomes or influence is not yet clear. But politics like nature abhors a vacuum, with rapid disengagement from the political process we have to somehow fill that vacuum with something workable and reasonable. The consequences of the failure to do so doesn't bear thinking about.

The Strange Death Of Democratic England

Whilst Cameron is poncing about at the latest European Council meeting, trying to pretend to his party that his non-veto was a veto and he isn't backtracking, Conservative Home has further evidence of the sharply declining Tory party membership.

Depressing reading I'm sure it is for most Tories (except Cameron), Adrian Hilton's article is a rather apt analogy for the political process as a whole, as he lays bare the extent of decline in party membership.

Referring to Beaconsfield " the Tory Premier League historic and prestigious seat of Disraeli", he  illustrates the decline of membership by the graph above and writes:

This pattern of decline is in evidence in just about every Conservative association the length and breadth of the country. Beaconsfield can still glory in having the second-highest number of members of any association, but the fact remains that this represents a loss of almost 5000 paid-up supporters (76%) over the period I’ve been a member, and the reduction continues at the rate of about 100 a year. But more pressing even than the likelihood of extinction within a decade is that, on present rates of fund-raising and income, the association is projected this year to record its first ever financial loss. 

The flight of members then is so acute that even the 'wealthy Beaconsfield Conservative Association' is unable to cover its costs (other than by mortgaging assets). This crisis in membership therefore, argues Hilton, really ought to be a priority concern as the threat is now existential.

So what is the cause of the 'alarming rate of decline'. Well Hilton has a theory which in my view not only applies to the Tories but the entire political system:

...there was a time when being a member of the Conservative Party was an active democratic pursuit – we could freely select parliamentary candidates, propose motions for conference and even participate in debates from the floor. It was a festival of genuine political participation: we didn’t all agree, and neither did we have to pretend to: democracy is messy...

Sadly, all of these processes are now controlled by the centralised oligarchy, and members are left with the façade of engagement. Candidates are imposed, selections are rigged, and the annual conference is no longer a vibrant celebration of democracy with halls packed to standing: it is a technocratic rally to demagoguery, and a poorly-attended one at that (at least by Party members). No contentious "big issues" are discussed or debated... It is little more than window-dressing and sophistry for mass media consumption....

Replace the words 'Conservative Party' with 'Labour' or 'Lib Dems' and you wouldn't have to re-write much, if any at all, and replace with words like 'MP's' or 'government' or 'local councils' etc and the sentiments still apply - in spades.

"Little more than window dressing and sophistry for mass media consumption" summed up the 2010 election perfectly, with contentious "big issues" not being discussed nor debated as demonstrated so clearly.

As the article makes clear 'on the ground' Tories are being treated with absolute contempt, yet that is a malaise which infiltrates everywhere.

Under Cameron, the Conservative Party has become increasingly centralised, top-down and anti-democratic... why would hard-working, intelligent and highly educated [sic] Conservative Party members put up with this?

Or indeed us voters in general. The article concludes that despite Cameron's empty rhetoric of returning power...

"...from the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities. From Brussels to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy".

  Precisely the opposite has happened:

Under Cameron, the Conservative Party has become increasingly centralised, top-down and anti-democratic.

 And, more sinisterly:

But, as sure as night follows day, this will lead to the state funding of political parties. As I say, it appears almost purposeful.

Cameron's party is the perfect analogy of our current political climate; centralised and contemptuous of those it supposedly represents. Interestingly the Tory grassroots' reaction to it's party's ever increasingly anti-democratic nature has been one of apathy (my emphasis):

The vast majority seem passively content to permit their memberships to lapse, often citing (if asked) some generalised disillusionment with the lack of Tory ‘robustness’ – whether in government or opposition.

We are contending more with incremental indifference than forthright objection, and no number of polite letters or coaxing phone calls seem to persuade them to reconsider.

...members are left with an apparently unbridgeable epistemic distance between themselves and the Party Chairman, and so they fade away.

A mood reflected by the ever lower turnouts in elections, the electorate like the Tory members are retreating from a system that no longer reflects their views nor cares. But the sad truth is we simply cannot sustain a political situation where political views can no longer be expressed, in a purposeful (and peaceful) manner, indefinitely.

We live in dangerous times.

We Will Remember Them

The Telegraph reports that the EU wants the "digital right to be forgotten":

Embarrassing, inaccurate or simply personal data will have to be deleted from the internet and company databases if consumers ask, under a new set of European laws.

The move will mean that social networks such as Facebook or Twitter will have to comply with users' requests to delete everything they have ever published about themselves online. It will also mean that consumers will be able to force companies that hold data about them, such as for Tesco's Clubcard, to remove it. 

Naturally it being the Telegraph and all matters EU this isn't actually recent news. The EU have been keen to do this for some time. Eager to update the 1995 Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), here's the EU Commission's paper in 2010 (page 9):

"...clarifying the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, i.e. the right of individuals to have their data no longer processed and deleted when they are no longer needed for legitimate purposes. This is the case, for example, when processing is based on the person’s consent and when he or she withdraws consent or when the storage period has expired;"

And from a "EU data protection reform – frequently asked questions":

For example, there should be a "right to be forgotten," which means that individuals should have the right to have their data fully removed when it is no longer needed for the purposes for which it was collected. People who want to delete profiles on social networking sites should be able to rely on the service provider to remove personal data, such as photos, completely.

Similarly, users should know and understand about how their internet use is being monitored for the purposes of behavioural advertising. For example, people should be aware when online retailers use previously viewed web sites as a basis to make product suggestions.

It is also important that individuals are informed when their data has been unlawfully accessed, altered or destroyed by unauthorised persons. The Commission is therefore considering extending the obligation to notify personal data breaches beyond the currently covered telecommunications sector to other areas, such as the financial industry.

And the reason the EU is keen on this is relatively simple, it allows another power grab which leads onto more regulation of the internet, dressed up as 'looking after our interests', as well as another important persuasive factor:

The changes...also include a new EU power to fine companies up to 2 per cent of their global turnover if they breach the rules.

More potential coffers in the kitty, how convenient.

But despite this, going by the comments under the Telegraph article the EU move appears to be depressingly popular - "at last the EU does something useful" is a common one. The irony of complaining about lack of privacy on the internet by...er...posting a comment on the internet appears to be lost; epitomised by this gem (click to enlarge):

One wonders why you'd complain about internet privacy when voluntarily signing up to a 'social networking' website where the fundamental business model is based on sharing information.

Then there's the practicalities - one man's privacy is another's free speech. What if you want to as an example, years later, erase a photograph of yourself on Facebook being embarrassingly drunk but the other chap in the picture finds it highly amusing and wants to retain it? Whose rights come first?

What if you're on a protest and photographed by a newspaper who then advertises their story on Facebook. Should you be able to insist Facebook remove the picture? This would surely be tantamount to censorship. And we all know where these kind of 'helpful' laws' eventually end up:

Wikipedia is under a censorship attack by a convicted murderer who is invoking Germany’s privacy laws in a bid to remove references to his killing of a Bavarian actor in 1990.

And there's the technicalities. Is it possible to request that every bit of data that might identify you is erased? For example removing IP addresses, logs and timestamps? The list would be endless and is impossible to enforce. What about demanding that even your request for deletion gets deleted?

In summary, what we have is an unelected and unaccountable Government body wanting to regulate the internet, and thus by implication free speech, on the pretext of our own protection. That, history tells us, never leads to anywhere good.

Dehumanising The Victim Makes Things Simpler...

Richard North reminds us that it's the 70th of the Wannsee Conference.

Above is an excerpt from the very unsettling BBC film Conspiracy based on the infamous meeting, which vividly illustrates that people's lives were reduced to that of numbers and 'Dilbert like corporate speak'.

It can, and will happen again...

Facts - Up In Smoke

I, personally, don't smoke, never have - my vice of choice is ale. My wife does though or more accurately she did until she gave up for the second time a couple of months ago. I don't like my wife smoking, she knows that but ultimately it's her decision and I leave it at that.

Yet it was with some irritation to both of us that BBC Breakfast this morning had as their main headline news a report from the British Medical Association that smoking should be banned in cars. Funnily enough when it comes to smoking, any civil liberty or freedom is too much - we've been here before. As Velvet Glove, Iron Fist correctly predicted yesterday, it's ground hog day:

Word has it that the British Medical Association is going to have another stab at campaigning for a smoking ban in cars today. This is turning into an biannual crusade and I don't have any more to say about it than I did in all these previous posts.

Yep, an organisation with vested interests on a regular basis releases a press statement that is regurgitated verbatim and with enthusiasm by the BBC without critical comment. The same old weary pattern seen with many other issues such as minimum pricing on alcohol and obesity. As VGIF points out, the report is inaccurate at best.

It really is pathetic. And not just the BBC, the lies were repeated right across the MSM. It's no wonder why me and many others have stopped listening to them. It's bloggers - the voices of little (unpaid) guys that are filling the void - the MSM is becoming irrelevant and are writing themselves out of the script.

Different Class

Aside from Miliband's 'gaffe, what's been revealing about the 'uncut march' violence is the Police's response on Saturday, and indeed to other similar recent protests. Their relative restraint to wanton damage to property and intimidating violence has been obvious. My view apparently puts me in the 'passive' territory argued by Boris Johnson:

They will be content to see the police being unfairly attacked on all sides, for being too passive (the Right-wing press) or too brutal (the Guardian)

Now, I have no wish for the Police to go overboard in their response and I understand that they were overwhelmed by numbers and that; they faced being attacked with light bulbs filled with ammonia, fireworks filled with coins and smoke bombs. However it seems odd to me, that shops weren't as protected as they could have been and only now are stop and search polices being implemented because of the threat to the Royal Wedding.

It is my view that if the Police had experienced similar problems from another group of people then their reaction would be far less passive.

The much larger group of people I refer to face far more draconian measures by the Police on a weekly basis. They also do so despite having exactly the same problem of a minority of people grabbing the headlines by wanton violence. The majority, however, endure such measures largely without the same sort of sympathy from others. These vast majority of peaceful people are:

• 'Kettled' as soon as they arrive at a train station
  
  
• Sometimes being kettled in an area too small for the number of persons held. Crushing happens and panic ensures. The response to the panic is a vigorous use of Police batons. Children are being crushed. People outside the kettled area desperately trying to help to pull children out of the crushing are also batoned, as are the children themselves. 10 and 11 year olds feel the full force of the law!
  
  
• Forced by the Police to reside in the nearest designated pub regardless until said Police decide to move them on.
  
  
• Not allowed outside the pub, even for a cigarette if it's outside the pub's boundaries, and the pub doesn't have a garden.
  
  
• Marched to the place of destination deliberately 15-20 minutes late.
  
  
• Subjected to a Section 60 search, usually without one being granted - it will be done retrospectively. Details such as names and address etc will be taken under Section 60 though the Act does not permit this. Any objection will be dealt with appropriately i.e. a threat of a trumped-up charge. Coins, newspapers and shoe laces are confiscated because they could be used as weapons.
  
  
• Subjected to another Section 60 search which takes place minutes later by a different policeman. No coins in the wallet apparently raises suspicions, but the answer that a previous Policeman confiscated them is not accepted either.
  
  
• Removed from destination and given a 'Rodney King' style beating down an alleyway separating back-to-back terrace housing. Other Policemen look on and laugh.
  
  
• Deliberately marched, after said activity, to the wrong platform and put on the wrong train.
  
  
• If put on the right train, it sometimes involves no lights, no bar, no seats and no toilet. Too many people crammed - standing - on such a train for a 3 hour journey.
  
  
• Forced out of a city or town, by the Police, under Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, even if they have not committed an offence and even if they did not originate from the Town/City that the Police want them to return to.
  
  
• Legally disadvantaged because anyone convicted of a Section 2 offence at this event will receive a harsher sentence than other section 2 convictions - sometimes it is double the custodial sentence usually given.
  
  
• Legally disadvantaged because anyone convicted under section 2 at this event will be banned from large areas of every city and town in the country on certain days for years.
  
  
• Legally disadvantaged because anyone convicted at this event will be banned from taking holidays at certain times of the year.
  

The large group I'm referring to are football fans. I do not condone violence at all but had it been football fans involved in the wanton destruction on Saturday the reaction by the Met would have been much much different.

All people are equal, but... The so-called anarchists should consider themselves lucky.

EU Defends Anti-Democracy Crackdown

From the EU Observer (my emphasis):

A senior advisor to EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton has defended Bahrain's security forces after they opened fire on protesters with live ammunition last week.

Speaking to MEPs in the foreign affairs committee in Brussels on Tuesday (22 March) after visiting Bahrain, Robert Cooper, Ashton's top advisor on the western Balkans and the Middle East, said the island is normally "a rather pleasant, peaceful place."

He went on: "I'm not sure if the police have had to deal with these public order questions before. It's not easy dealing with large demonstrations in which there may be violence. It's a difficult task for policemen. It's not something that we always get right in the best Western countries and accidents happen."

Accidents happen apparently.

Hattip: Open Europe

Update: EU fires water cannons and tear gas on protesters:

Thousands of protesters urging an end to Europe-wide austerity measures are marching in Brussels, the Belgian capital, outside a venue where regional leaders are meeting.

Police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse groups of demonstrators close to the European Union summit on Thursday, after activists blocked key roads in the city and caused a traffic gridlock.

The EU really hates this democracy malarkey doesn't it?

Hattip: The Talking Clock

EU Rules

At no surprise to anyone, UKIP supporters or otherwise, who follow the evils of the European Arrest Warrant, Julian Assange has lost his extradition case:

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team has confirmed. If they lose he will be sent to Sweden in 10 days.

Prima facie evidence in this country is no longer required for extradition:

So it became official. The highest court in the land [House of Lords] did not think it of general public interest if one of our citizens is consigned to a foreign prison system on trumped up charges.

And so it proves:

The defence had argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not grounds for extradition.

So:

Outside the court Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the ruling had not come as a surprise and reaffirmed the Assange team's concerns that adhering to the European arrest warrant (EAW) amounted to "tick box justice".

Therefore, democracy takes a back seat:

Stephens suggested Riddle had been "hamstrung" by the EAW. "We're pretty sure the secrecy and the way [the case] has been conducted so far have registered with this judge. He's just hamstrung," he told reporters.

As I blogged here, the Guardian are outraged but not enough to campaign against our membership of the EU - you reap what you sow.

Update: Assange is in the Telegraph (my emphasis):

The ruling against him came as a result of "a European arrest warrant system run amok", he claimed.

He said: "There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merit of the allegations made against me, no consideration or examination of even the complaints made in Sweden and of course we have always known we would appeal."

First They Came...

First they came for a grandmother,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the students,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the football fans,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the business men,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the holiday makers,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the Guardian /BBC reader,
and it's whoops perhaps this European Arrest Warrant is not such a good thing after all (my emphasis):

One of the arguments Mr Assange's lawyers will raise concerns what is known as "double" or "dual criminality". This principle ensures that no one is extradited unless the allegations against them from the requesting state, amount to a criminal offence in English law.

His lawyers will argue that the first three allegations which cover unlawful coercion and sexual molestation do not constitute an offence under English law.

The equivalent offence would be sexual assault, which requires a lack of consent. It will be argued that the arrest warrant doesn't allege a lack of consent.

Double criminality, however, doesn't apply in the case of the fourth allegation, rape.

This is one of the list of offences under the European Arrest Warrant framework where the extraditing country has simply to tick a box.

Mr Assange's lawyers will seek to argue double criminality here by reference to European law, but it may prove a difficult argument to win.

Hardly a surprise - the EAW means that UK magistrates no longer consider prima facie evidence for extradition.

The New Dictator Of Ireland

Barely has the signature ink dried on Ireland's bailout agreement and this unelected tosser aka the EU Commissioner for Economic Affairs, Olli Rehn has waded in with his orders:

"The EU Commissioner for Economic Affairs, Olli Rehn, has said that it would not be advisable for any new government in Ireland to attempt to renegotiate either the interest rate on the EU/IMF loan or the use of the National Pension Reserve Fund in repairing the banking sector."

It won't be advisable to any new Government which has an elected mandate? So if the majority of the Irish vote to default, then tough? Why not do away with elections altogether then Mr Rehn?

In an interview with RTÉ News, Commissioner Rehn said it did not want to involve himself in democratic politics in Ireland.

Of course not, democratic politics is an alien concept to you, much better to remain above it all, directing operations but out of the grasp of accountability.

He said he 'fully understood' the frustration and anger of the Irish people about the banking sector, which he said had made big mistakes in the past.

Ahhh 'fully understood'? How sympathetic, however...

'...we have to move on and the essential thing is to complete the repair, implying both the restructuring and downsizing of the banking system,' he said.

In other words, the people, their jobs, their lives, their concerns are irrelevant.

Mr Rehn said he did not see any tensions or reservations in other member states approving the loan. 'I trust there is the same sense of responsibility and solidarity both for Ireland and Europe as a whole,' he stated.

Not from where I'm standing there isn't. If Mr Rehn comes anywhere near this country with such statements then he's going to promptly receive an oversized, ticking, Jiffy bag with the letters ACME stamped on it.

EU: Democratic Elections Are Irresponsible

Because those pesky voters will get in the way:

EUROPEAN OFFICIALS have warned that any collapse of the Coalition before an EU-IMF rescue deal was struck would be “very irresponsible”.

As the Greens signalled their exit from Government in January and anxiety about contagion risk from Ireland’s crisis weighed on the euro, a source familiar with the position of European negotiators said it was their clear understanding with the Irish authorities that the Government would be able to pass the 2011 budget next month.

Shocking, I mean the voters might get a say on how their Government has acted or on the budget. Of course this is utterly disgraceful. EU commissioner Olli Rehn has also waded in:

It is essential that Ireland will pass the budget in the timeline foreseen and certainly sooner rather than later because every day that is lost increases uncertainty. Let's adopt the budget, let's get it out of the way, and let's move on.

Let's get it out the way? Let's move on? Rather like the Lisbon Treaty? Piss off you unelected tosser.

Smoke Free Europe?

In an interview to the German paper Die Welt, the EU health commissioner John Dalli has announced his intentions to intensify the campaign against smoking across the EU (via Google Translate, my emphasis):

The European Union will next year intensify the smoking laws. "Will be the target of new legislation on tobacco products, smoking, making in all EU countries less attractive and less harmful," said the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs, John Dalli, 62, WELT ONLINE. "We must strengthen our efforts in the fight against smoking. The ideal is a smoke-free Europe, "the conservative politician from Malta.

The Commissioner proposes "a significant reduction of toxic and addictive ingredients in cigarettes, like nicotine" in front. He also think about it, cigarettes make it even harder to access, they may be issued by not more visible in a store. He praised the ban on the sale of cigarettes in Britain's supermarkets in 2011 as "exemplary." The Commissioner further said: "Even changes in cigarette packaging are desirable: the more uniform and bland, the cigarette packaging, the better. The cigarette should eventually look so simple that they are not tempted to buy. "Could also appear deterrent warning pictures and detailed information on harmful ingredients on the packaging.

Dalli, who in his own country first finance and then was Minister of Social Affairs, also calls for the consistent enforcement of smoke-free environments. A "complete ban on smoking in all public spaces, transport and the workplace is necessary. Exceptions for corner bars and beer tents I do not think makes sense, because this is not just about the health of visitors, but also the employees." The economic arguments that would temporarily run as a reason for exemptions for smoking in the field were not convincing . "It can not be that the economic benefit is more important than the health of people," said Dalli.

In short the anti-smoking measures by the UK is likely to be enforced in an update of the Tobacco Products Directive, rendering any smokers' campaigns in this country redundant; effectively disenfranchising them.

The EU's public consultation on updating the Directive can be found here, and you can make your feelings known to the Commissioner here.

Another Medway Council Update

On the 6th September I blogged the following in regard to a less than comprehensive response by Medway Council to a complaint:

I'm currently writing a response, I will post it on here when I can.

On reflection I've changed my mind. I've decided to keep my powder dry. Ciggy busters were apparently organising another 'event' this month and so far nothing has happened and Rachael's twitter account has not been updated since I complained. My instinct is that the blogosphere's reaction has prompted an about-turn, despite us being universally fobbed off by the relevant authorities. The school, council and maybe the police have been taken aback by the reaction. Good.

So if no more ciggy busters' activities take place then, for me, it's job done. If however there are more 'demonstrations' - in the same format as before - then a second complaint will go in referencing my first.

Medway Council Update

In the nick of time I've had a reply. Surprise surprise they don't uphold my complaint - of course they don't:

Re: Formal Complaint – Rachael Noxon

I refer to your recent email about the Ciggybusters project.

We have checked with the organisers and all the people who had cigarettes taken off of them, and they were actors or willing participants. At no point did any smokers have their cigarettes taken without their permission.

This project, which looks at the dangers of smoking, was funded through a Community Chest grant by A Better Medway – a health campaign run by Medway Council and NHS Medway. Singling out the Tobacco Control Strategy Co-ordinator specifically as focus for your complaint is therefore inappropriate.

This project was something that was arranged and managed by the people that made the film, but neither Medway Council or NHS Medway would have condoned any activity that could cause offence.

The young people making the film, and the adults overseeing it, carefully stage-managed this to make sure that relevant organisations and participants were aware of the event in advance.

Everyone who took part knew what was happening and were not in any way offended. At no point were members of the public approached without their permission.

For these reasons I do not uphold your complaint.

Yours Sincerely

Naturally I'm being fobbed off. The main thrust of my complaint is that a Medway employee was, by encouraging the video (whether simulated or not), potentially guilty of incitement. The subsequent ambiguous statements by the participants since and lack of clarity in the video make this clear. At no point in the reply has this been addressed. Not only a criticism by me but also indicated by this Lib Dem councillor:

To get back to the facts of the case, the key questions were:

1/ Q: Were Ciggy Busters funded/ part-funded by Medway Council?
A: From press-reports, Yes

2/ Q: Were Ciggy Busters's plans approved by the police?
A: From press reports, yes, providing it involved only group members not unsuspecting members of the public.

3/ Q: Did Ciggy Busters involve unsuspecting members of the public?
A: From the statement by Gramenga, Yes

4/ Q: Would a resonable person have approved of Ciggy Busters project methods (surrounding people in the street and snatching their property)
A: No

5/ Q: Would a resonable person think that the actions of Ciggy Busters were illegal, if it was shown that they took property from members of the public?
A: Yes

6: Q: Were the member of the public doing anything illegal themseleves?
A: No - they were smoking in a public place (CHatham High Street)

7: Q: Even if all the people filmed in the video were actors/ members of the group, would a resonable person have approved of Ciggy Busters project methods (surrounding people in the street and snatching their property)?
A: No

8: Q: Do the actions of this group warrant further investigation?
A: Yes

I'm currently writing a response, I will post it on here when I can.

All Quiet On The Blogging Front

I'm taking a short blogging sabbatical as I head towards Torquay for a jolly the serious business of a party conference.

Just a quick update on my complaint to Medway Council. No response yet. They gave me a 5 day target via their email auto response, but their guidelines give a 10 day one:

We will acknowledge your complaint within three working days of us receiving it and will aim to provide you with a full reply within 10 working days. If this is not possible we will contact you to explain the reason for any delay and give you a new reply date.

I've had it confirmed that the 10 day target takes precedence and this is due this weekend. I don't expect a response, but if they think that means I'm going away quietly then they will be wrong.

Medway Council (Sort Of) Update

As yet no response to my complaint; they have a 5 day target which expires today, so I have the escalation procedure primed and ready to go. So while we're waiting here's another gem about Medway Council courtesy of former councilor John Ward:

Today, [Councillor David Craggs] has resigned!

The reason for the resignation is given in a statement from Mr Craggs in YourMedway, which has just appeared while I was writing this post:

"People will know that I have served as a volunteer special constable on behalf of the people of Kent for the past 17 years, a role that I have held with pride. In the hope that I could expand my community service I stood as a councillor for Medway.

I did not believe there was any conflict between these roles and was unaware that police regulations prevent anyone from holding political office whilst also serving the police."

Like John Ward I wasn't aware that Special Constables were "politically restricted". However he later highlights this below (my emphasis):

... since this story broke on Conservative Home, it has become clear that other councillors and even MPs have been allowed to be Special Constables at the same time, as HERE and HERE. I suspect the reason the Kent Police Authority's policy has been left unclear is to allow for politically-motivated manipulation. I could be wrong; but I do wonder whether the same would have happened if (say) a Labour or Green candidate had been in exactly the same situation...

Medway Council and Kent Police are not very good are they?

Update: John Ward has further information on his blog with a press release, from which this extract comes from:

Kent Police were incorrect, and arguably unlawful. They had even threatened disciplinary action against David Craggs. Because the statutory �Notice of vacancy‘ has now been issued, acting upon David Craggs resignation letter, the electoral cycle is started and cannot be retracted, despite the resignation now clearly being unnecessary, based on wrong advice and arguably extracted under duress.

This means that another election may need to be held, because Kent Police got the law wrong. The situation is virtually unbelievable. Kent Police must bear full responsibility for this situation, and for the extra costs to be borne by the council, candidates and political parties. No explanation or apology has been forthcoming.

His conclusion is:

Yes, this was almost certainly a case of political manipulation, as the timing and other details show sufficiently clearly that a jury would very probably come to that conclusion.

The terms 'Medway', 'cosh' and 'under' come to mind.

Ciggy Busters Update

Not for me yet unfortuantely, 2 days left to respond to my letter, but Freedom-2-Choose has this:

I received an amazing phone call about half an hour ago from a gentleman by the name of Jim. Now 'Jim' is a reporter working for the Medway newsgroup, I assume the Medway Messenger (?) I was amazed because he had phoned to enquire why we were so angry about the 'Ciggy Busters' article & video-he wanted our side of the story.

Sorry, I'll repeat that for the benefit of the dazed & bewildered...

HE WANTED OUR SIDE OF THE STORY.

I informed him very politely that all smokers would find it offensive for the simple reason that it was portraying smokers as 'fair game' for any type of vigilante abuse. (Oh!) It was sending out the message that we agreed with 'wolf packs', ie gangs of kids, marauding the streets taking any chance to intimidate people not of their liking/persuasion. (Oh!)

I then explained that this would not be tolerated if it was aimed at gays, muslims or the disabled. (No. Well of course not Phil)

Then why can a minority faction, smokers, be subject to random attacks when gays, muslims & the disabled are obviously exempted? (Well they are...[pause]...I see...yes...hmm)...

Safe to say 'Jim' is now a lot wiser as to smokers temperament, reasoning & feelings so I think the article will be a fair reflection of what was said this afternoon. He seemed mortified at the thought of a smoker objecting to such treatment and 'smacking' one of these idiot youths 'in the mouth'. He did not answer when I asked what HE thought the police would do in such a circumstance?

Which is a bit different to Kent Police's reply

Medway Council

The endorsement by Medway Council of the conduct of these students has annoyed me to the extent that I've decided to write to them via their complaints procedure. The full text of my email is as follows:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding Medway Council’s apparent endorsement of potentially illegal activity by some students from The Hundred of Hoo School based in Rochester.

Some students have formed an anti-smoking campaign group who call themselves ‘CiggyBusters’ which, as this article makes clear, involves running through the streets removing cigarettes from members of the public while filming them and the subsequent video has been put on the internet. The organizers, and the teacher, appeared to have confirmed that some members of the public were targeted at random.

As I’m sure you are acutely aware, removing items from people without consent constitutes a criminal act (in this case more than one). Therefore it should be of great concern to Medway Council, that one its employees: Tobacco Control Strategic Coordinator, Rachael Noxon, not only condones this behaviour, but is actively promoting it, as seen by her website and her Twitter feed.

In addition I’m sure you are aware, encouraging criminal activity is also a serious offence; it’s incitement. It contravenes sections 44, 45 & 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (even if the criminal activity featured in the video on the internet is ‘simulated’)

As a non-smoker, I support the involvement of anyone involved in campaigns by means of methods such as; leaflets, T-shirts & posters etc, but the conduct of these students clearly oversteps the mark both morally and legally. It does not take a lot of imagine to appreciate the distress a vulnerable person may feel when approached by gang of young people shouting and taking items from them.

Another ‘campaign’ is planned for September, again with the full endorsement and encouragement of a Medway Council employee.

I trust you will investigate Rachael Noxon’s conduct in this case with the utmost urgency and I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours faithfully

Let's see how they like them apples.

One wonders how long it will be before smokers have to wear yellow stars. Certainly if I had produced a video showing people ripping veils off Muslim women, even if stage-managed, as a protest about Burqas, I would have a visit from Mr Plod very quickly.

It looks like however the students in question are trying to back-track rapidly as they frantically try to remove their names and videos from various websites (the wonders of Google cache). The hostile reaction seems to be scaring them. Good.

Update: I have an auto mail reply confirming they've received it. They have a target of 5 working days to respond.