Thank Fax For That

For some time it's been a source of amusement to me, that the utter panic and chaos of the final day of the UK football transfer window still relies on the fax machine to complete transfer deals - in an industry worth £100millions, in 2011.

Lights Out

From today it has become illegal under EU law, to import or manufacture traditional, and popular, incandescent 60 watt light bulbs. Our unelected unaccountable Government, immune from the ballot box, is in effect trying to tell us how to light our own houses. Well that isn't going to happen in my case, in fact I took recent action of removing the only (still working) low energy bulbs I had and throwing them in the non- recycling / landfill bill. I don't think I'm supposed to do that - whoops.

But as Mary Ellen Synon points out there's more to this ban than simply trying to 'save energy':

On offer in their place at the bricolage were light bulbs for five and six times the price but you know about that wheeze. What no once can know is how many millions the electrical goods industry has spent on their lobbying operation here in Brussels to get this change through, and how much they spent on experts to 'help' draft this legislation. The EU has now made it possible for the industry to expect you and me to spend 30 quid on a light bulb.

There are though two unintended consequences for the EU; firstly it will encourage a flourishing black market which I suspect a significant motivation will be two fingers up at the EU and the second, and probably more important, it makes the EU even more visible. Increasingly the EU no longer hides behind national institutions to conceal its power, it instead is becoming more confident of making decisions that can be directly linked to it.

And this is where the faux Eurosceptics are so far behind the curve that even the Hubble telescope would be useless as an aid to help them find it. They can posture all they want, but as the EU continues to integrate - its effects thus becoming more visible - then the Tory increasingly schizophrenic argument of 'in Europe not ruled by it' becomes ever more ridiculous, and obviously so. The Tory so-called Eurosceptics are being left behind as a relevance at a rapid rate.

It won't be the faux Eurosceptics Tories that get us out, nor the dry details of the another European institution power grab but the likes of the humble incandescent light bulb.

Bodies

I've blogged about Labour MP Kerry McCarthy's rather hypocritical views on music before. She took umbrage at an apparent 'date rape' message in a former boy band member's song, something that he subsequently denied, and she suggested that the record should be banned.

Kerry is, however, happy to promote punk - that famous bastion of good taste. At the time when I pointed out, via twitter, the dubious Nazi origins of Joy Division's name (her favourite band) and the nature of their followers, my complaints were labelled by her as 'offensive'.

And, as her latest post proves, Kerry doesn't mind dodgy music lyrics per se; here's her views on the rather robust Sex Pistols song on abortion:

...it was rather dodgy lyrically speaking and completely juvenile in its politics, although it’s still a great song.

I know it's relatively trivial, but stuff like this winds me up - it's MPs like Kerry that will censor our music, films and video games based on their own personal preference rather than adhering to the principle of free speech. The warped views of Ms McCarthy is the reason that I can buy black rapper MC Ren's blatantly racist album in a high street store but not a Skrewdriver one.

All music is equal but...

Big Success?

Following on from Autonomous Mind's wonderful exposure of Roger Helmer MEP as a Judas goat, Helmer unwittingly reinforces AM's point by tweeting this today:

Apparently reducing the number of Strasbourg sessions is hailed as a 'big success'. A genuine campaigner against the EU and our membership of it, of course, wouldn't give a toss how many sessions Strasbourg has. All that matters is that the EU Parliament has no sessions at all in either Brussels or Strasbourg because it no longer exists or that it's irrelevant because the UK is no longer a member.

Mr Helmer, however, thinks that making the EU more efficient at its job is something to be proud of. It isn't.

Update: Ironies Too has an interesting post on another sidekick of Roger Helmer - the 'fierce Eurosceptic' Chris Heaton-Harris MP

Not Banning The Burka?

Before the last election one of UKIP's manifesto policies was to ban the burka, it was a controversial move and one policy I fundamentally disagreed with (though I understood some of the concerns behind the move). I vented my frustrations on here at the time.

Now it appears, during a twitter exchange, that the policy has been dropped. No official announcement of course but good news if true. Anyway, it gives me an excuse to post one of my favourite Matt cartoons. Just priceless:

All Inclusive - EU Style

It appears via Wikileaks that the Belgians are whinging have expressed concerns to the US about a G20 "super group" within the EU:

Our[US] Dutch interlocutors have also noted some tension between EU members that are G20 participants and those that are not; the Belgians, for example, have expressed concern about a G20 "super group" within the EU that consults on the issues first before bringing the discussion to the larger EU community. As guests in the G20, the Dutch are trying to walk a fine line between wanting to punch above their weight with the big EU economies in the G20 and foster their usual spirit of inclusiveness and consultation with all EU member states.

Bless the Belgians feel a little left out. Though it would help their cause greatly if they could perform the relatively basic task of forming a Government first - 14 months and counting (leaving aside the fact that their real Government resides in Brussels anyway).

"War On Every Front"

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph writes that this coming month, or even next couple of weeks, will decide the future of Angela Merkell, Germany's destiny, and the fate of the Euro:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel no longer has enough coalition votes in the Bundestag to secure backing for Europe's revamped rescue machinery, threatening a consitutional crisis in Germany and a fresh eruption of the euro debt saga.

Mrs Merkel has cancelled a high-profile trip to Russia on September 7, the crucial day when the package goes to the Bundestag and the country's constitutional court rules on the legality of the EU's bail-out machinery.

Mrs Merkel's aides say she is facing "war on every front".

There are ever louder concerns being aired in Germany about the lack of democracy in a fiscal union which the Euro survival depends on:

Christian Wulff, Germany's president, stunned the country last week by accusing the European Central Bank of going "far beyond its mandate" with mass purchases of Spanish and Italian debt, and warning that the Europe's headlong rush towards fiscal union stikes at the "very core" of democracy. "Decisions have to be made in parliament in a liberal democracy. That is where legitimacy lies," he said.

Merkel therefore faces defeat which would surely start the unravelling of the Euro. But I wonder if, despite their reservations, the Germans really will put their concerns above the EU knowing what the ultimate consequences will be? Would they be prepared to take the inevitable blame over the fall of the EU?

I doubt it. The German Constitutional Court has a track record of wriggling rulings out in favour of the EU on these issues (it will do so again) and then there's the boundless stupidity of the German Government as AEP acknowledges (my emphasis):

While the bill is likely to pass, the furious debate leaves no doubt that Germany will resist moves to boost the EFSF's firepower yet further. Most City banks say the fund needs €2 trillion to stop the crisis engulfing Spain and Italy.

It's important to appreciate the almost limitless determination to keep EU and the Euro going come what may. So a bumpy September awaits the Euro but I suspect it will continue albeit in an even more crippled state than before.

"I Agree To Everything I'm Opposed To"

I struggle to add anything meaningful to Autonomous Mind's posts, exposing so-called euro-sceptic Roger Helmer MEP as yet another Tory Judas Goat, largely because the whole process has became unbearably tedious in its predictability. Decades of the same ol' Tory mantra - "in Europe, not ruled by it", "Tories are really eurosceptic" blah blah blah takes its toll. As Richard North wonderfully puts it:

Turning then to the Speccytwat, we then find a variation of the Tory theme, with the young Forsyth pontificating about how – on the basis of yet another inane an expensive EU law – Dave and his merry men need to "tackle Britain's relationship with the EU".

...Britain does not have a relationship with the EU – Britain is part of the EU. This country can no more have a relationship with this body than can we suggest that our own left feet have relationships with our own bodies.

The problem with which we are confronted, therefore, is that the Tory commentators are so incredibly thick that they cannot even get past first base.

Rather like the pesky pigeons that sat on my roof this morning at 5am - waking me up by cooing incessantly. Pompously sat there, sticking their chests out as if they're important, cooing the same dull notes over and over and over again. It's enough to drive me insane. Brainless and stupid, there's no point arguing with them, nope, the only solution is to get the airgun out.

That Nice Mr Cameron

Note to the Daily Telegraph; if you're going to write a 'puff piece' at least make it vaguely plausible. This one on Cameron is so magnificently ludicrous (apparently one of Cameron's faults is that he's too nice for his own good) it's not even one worth frisking - just reading the first two sentences is enough:

It is odd, but undeniable: a lot of people still underrate David Cameron. There are parallels with Margaret Thatcher.

See what I mean? Just those 19 words would take a whole blog post to frisk! Quite frankly anyone who thinks Cameron is underrated needs to find a very large saucepan, fill it with water, bring it to the boil...and then stick their head in it. But oh no, the deluded article goes on, praising Cameron's handling of the riots:

Again, the Prime Minister struck exactly the right note: reassuring but firm. He displayed the most important quality which a political leader needs in difficult circumstances: grip. He took a grip on the crisis and in so doing, set the terms of the debate: that while social problems must be addressed, there is no excuse for criminality.

Reassuring but firm? Took grip on the crisis? Or another way of putting it: announcing a number of half-baked, unworkable measures and also propose ones that already existed. One example was the shutting down of social networks during a riot (a move even praised by China):

Mr Cameron told MPs: ‘Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media.

‘We are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.’

So how's this well-thought out, carefully considered and 'firm' proposal going Dave? Er not well:

David Cameron’s plan to shut down social networking sites to prevent disorder was ditched in a humiliating U-turn yesterday.

Humiliating eh? Still at least we can take comfort in the Telegraph's analysis that Cameron is underrated.

This Sunday My Basic Civil Rights Will Be Suspended

Ever since the London riots the MSM has been churning out copious gobs on a stick offering various opinions on the causes of the riots and either calling for harsher sentencing or conversely more 'understanding' of the rioters - some are even blaming the coalition cuts. Unsurprisingly the Lib Dems have been found sitting on the 'sympathy for the criminal' side of the fence as expressed by their condemnation of the four 4 year sentence of two Facebook users who tried to incite rioters.

However despite all the arguments, on Sunday life and suspension of basic rights will continue unabated for a significant number of people, a situation which I suspect will pass without much comment or complaint. As regular readers know The Boiling Frog is a supporter of a particular football team and on Sunday we face our bitter local rivals - Oxford United whom we haven't played for 10 years. Though, as a derby game, it's not on the same scale in terms of numbers as a Celtic vs Rangers or Millwall vs West Ham match the passion is just as intense and the potential for disorder is similar. As a result it has been issued with a category 'C plus' rating- the highest category awarded to a football match for anticipated violence. What this C+ category actually means in practice is that there will be two sets of thugs on the streets.

Because of the nature and profile of the game one set of thugs will consist of knuckle-dragging big hitters who will haul themselves out of their respective rain-soaked hovels with either the intention of trying to 'take' the town or 'defend' the town. Unpleasant as it is, the vast majority of peaceful fans, myself included, will be left largely untroubled by these hooligans who have a perverse code of honour of not attacking ordinary fans.

In contrast there's the other set of thugs which the ordinary law-biding fan will be a lot more wary of and it's only a small mercy that they can be easily identified. They wear the same uniform, have steel toe-capped boots, riot helmets and other paraphernalia - essentially looking like an army. They will be given every tool available by the state (short of firearms); helicopters, dogs, riot shields, mobile CCTV vans and, crucially because it's a C+ game, the ability to act above the law. I'm of course referring to the Police, and unlike the aforementioned group of thugs, their thuggery will be indiscriminate - everyone will be fair game for a whack of the baton (or worse); men, women & children.

Years ago I apologised to a copper I lived next door to in - as later turned out mistaken - shame on behalf of my fellow supporters for ruining his Sunday off because our match had been moved which meant he was called in. Revealingly his response was;

"Don't worry, it means I'm allowed to hit people and get paid double-time for the privilege"

From experience I have no reason to doubt his sentiments. I've been spat at, punched, grabbed by the throat to the point of being strangled and batoned by Police Officers for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time and trying very politely to exercise my rights. I've seen much worse happen to fellow supporters, and I've got off very lightly compared to others:

Until 11 September last year, the police were rather admired in the Meyers household. All that changed in a few dreadful seconds on Reading station, when the two of them were forced to watch as officers handcuffed Tony's older son, 20-year-old Leeds University student Tommy, forced him on to the ground, and set a police dog on him. The dog bit fiercely into Tommy's face – he couldn't even raise his handcuffed hands to protect himself. The injuries will be with him for the rest of his life, partly because the police refused him access to antibiotics for 14 hours, by which time infection had taken hold.

And:

Augur politely appealed to [the Police]. "I told them that he was a 15-year-old boy for whom I was responsible," says Augur, but he was curtly rebuffed, and the police started pushing people. "I was knocked into my younger son, John. The dog handler allowed the dog sufficient rein so that it could get at my other son, James. I saw the dog sink his teeth into James's lower leg. It was obvious he was in pain. I shouted to the police: 'That's my son, let him go.'"

Augur kicked out at the dog. The animal released James and turned on him, sinking its teeth into his leg. He fell to the floor. "I saw the dog in my face. I was horrified and frightened."

The dog was pulled away, and two or three policemen seized him. "I was on the floor with them holding me down. I felt a tremendous kick to my right side underneath my armpit. I was gasping for breath. I really thought I was going to die. A few seconds later I felt someone standing on my back, holding me down with their foot.

"I managed to look to my right and I saw two policemen holding James on the floor. He was shouting: 'Help me, Dad, help me.' A policeman punched him in the face while he was being held down on the floor.

Throw a piece of chewing gum at a football match?

A Luton Town fan has been banned from attending any football matches for three years for throwing chewing gum at a game.

Martin Wilson, of Townsley Close, Luton, pleaded guilty to ‘throwing an unknown missile’ at visiting supporters contrary to Sections 2 and 5 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.

Wilson was also fined £615 which included court costs.

With the advent of camera phones, it should be easy to record this stuff for future complaints but any attempt to use such a device openingly is enough to ensure an even more robust Police response. Before 2008 cameras were just forcibly removed even though there was no legal basis for that to happen, now the Police can, and do, simply invoke Section 76 of the 2008 Counter Terrorism Act.

Sharp eyed readers will have noticed that my game has been moved from a Saturday fixture to an early Sunday kick-off. The reason being according to the Football Intelligence Officer (an oxymoron if ever there was one) is to limit alcohol consumption:

Acting Detective Sergeant James Neighbour, Swindon’s football liaison officer, said reducing the amount of drinking time before the match was the main reason it was moved.

He said: “It was a decision made in consultation with the football club.

“It was decided firstly it should be an early kick-off to prevent too much alcohol being consumed before.

“And the reason for holding it on the Sunday is to negate any disorder as much as we can. The fact the next day is a working day dissuades people from drinking as much as perhaps they would on a Saturday.

The key words here are; "too much alcohol being consumed". That bit is true but it would be a fallacy to assume that the Police want to prevent fans visiting the pub before a game altogether thus to be stone cold sober - and the reason is simple.

By allowing a certain amount of restricted pub time before a game gives two advantages. Not only does it mean that the Police can legally 'kettle' you in a confined area but that you've been in a pub helps their defence later on - "yes your honour not only was he attending a match where there was potential for trouble causing significant problems for the Police but he spent a couple of hours in the pub beforehand". That way they have the perfect defence for their more 'robust responses'. Whether you had spent that time drinking coke in the pub becomes irrelevant - you're a football fan and you've been in a pub so de facto your basic rights have been suspended.

And as you enter the pub that you have been forced to march to courtesy of a Police escort, you will be searched, your wallet rummaged through, details taken (even though illegal under Section 60), filmed by Police camcorders and your picture taken with a camera that has an oversized flash on it - that temporarily blinds you.

This Sunday undoubtedly the papers will be crammed full of more articles on the London riots with lots of 'chin-stroking-what-does-it-all-mean' commentary, meanwhile in a small corner of Wiltshire countless law-abiding citizens will be subjected to Police actions that will be contrary to the rule of law.

Even Shami Chakrabarti, someone I'm a frequent critic of, understands these concerns well:

"I have come to be horrified at some of the treatment that law-abiding fans have experienced. We are in danger of demonising anyone who goes to football matches."

And PCC commissioner Nicholas Long:

"I am surprised that we see as few complaints and referrals as we do from policing of football matches. The police should not imagine that the majority of people attending football matches are bent on violence."

But I suppose expecting any of those self-appointed experts in the media to care is a bit like asking for the moon on a stick.