I'm not dead - just very, very busy

Apologies for the lack of posting recently: I have been extremely busy at work and at home and while the Reptile has been off-line, I have been posting on his blog to keep it active...

The good news is that the Reptile should be getting his BT Broadband tomorrow, so fingers crossed, I can get back to posting on my own blog as normal.

Australian angst: is the tide turning?

Further to my previous posts on this subject, it would appear that the accepted strategy of non-intervention in Aboriginal communities may finally be falling out of favour, with Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott calling for a new "paternalism" in indigenous affairs. I must say, I applaud this concept: for too long Australians have allowed a two-tier version of citizens' rights to exist, based on an outdated and misguided idea that the Australian Government should not intervene in indigenous affairs. I hope that this new idea catches on. There is clearly a great deal of work to be done, in terms of healthcare, law and order, education and eliminating poverty, and the first step on the way to this should be to acknowledge that both the Australian Government and the Aboriginal communities must share the responsibility in addressing these difficult issues.

You must be joking

In another blinding example of how out of control the bullying State has become, the government is to issue the "Dad Pack" to prospective fathers, dishing out otiose and patronising advice. The absurdly unnecessary booklet, for which the taxpayer has paid £50,000, tells fathers not to hassle their partners for sex, on the one hand, but also implores them not to go out and have an affair during pregnancy and after the birth of their child.

Not content with accusing men of being rapists and wife beaters, the State is now talking to men who are new fathers as though they are immature, selfish little brats.

When will this overweening State learn to butt out and let people take responsibility for their own lives? Ah yes, it's New Labour, so that would be never. How depressing.

Eng-er-land

I am an unabashed loather of the so-called beautiful game and only watch matches (even internationals) on sufferance. The results of the World Cup have always been to me a matter of indifference. I have, however, been goaded into taking an interest by the nasty and small-minded attitude of some people towards our English football fans and towards England's team. And by football fans, I don't mean the yobs, but the millions of law-abiding members of the population who are really excited by the World Cup and are backing England for all their worth.

Tell me. What is wrong with people showing their support by festooning shops and cars with the St. George's flag? Why does this cheerful display of English nationalism offend so many? And why do so many people choose to support anyone but England, (including most Scots, despite Gordon Brown's feeble charade)? And, even more inexplicably, why do so many people who choose to live in England still persist with their benighted down-with-England attitude? It's pathetic.

So, much as it pains me, I will be watching England's next match, frantically waving my St. George's flag.

COME ON ENGLAND

Sporadic Postings - update

Nearly there! Should be back to regular postings in the next few days...

Visual geography

I was going through my old e-mails (asyerdo) and found this very cool photograph which I was sent a fair while ago. Here is the explanatory text...

This photograph was taken by the crew on board the Columbia during its last mission. This photograph was taken via satellite, on a cloudless day.

The picture is of Europe and Africa when the sun is setting. Half of the picture is in night.

The bright dots you see are the cities lights. The top part of Africa is the Sahara Desert.

Note that the lights are already on in Holland, Paris, and Barcelona, and that it's still daylight in London, Lisbon, and Madrid.The sun is still shining on the Straight of Gibraltar. The Mediterranean Sea is already in darkness.

In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean you can see the Azores Islands; below them to the right are the Madeira Islands; a bit below are the Canary Islands; and further south, close to the farthest western point of Africa, are the Cape Verde Islands.

Note that the Sahara is huge and can be seen clearly both during daytime and nigh ttime. To the left, on top, is Greenland, totally frozen.

Too damned right

Now here is a blog after my own heart...

Definitely worth a look if you are a Londoner who is fed up with our incompetent buffoon of a mayor.

The Human Rights Act

I had the unusual opportunity today of attending a brief talk by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty fame. Her subject was human rights in the U.K., and the threat which they are currently under.

Shami Chakrabarti's main thrust was that the Human Rights Act (the "HRA") was a fragile and vulnerable piece of legislation, which was becoming more and more endangered by an increasingly authoritarian government and complacent electorate. She described the HRA as the only bulwark standing between the rights of the citizen and the powers of the executive and urged us to engage upon a wide civil society campaign to raise awareness among the general public of the importance of the HRA in protecting individual human rights.

Shami also touched on several other points: for example, that the war on terror has had the effect of turning murderers into soldiers (reference the video of London suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan), and that the government's ID card scheme is dangerous as it has no defined purpose (and as such is therefore likely to grow and grow) and also because it proposes to store information unverifiable by the individual.

These wider issues are also interesting, however, it is Shami's impassioned plea to protect the HRA which interests me most. What she singularly failed to address was the the question of enforceability. It is all very well to claim that the HRA enshrines fundamental rights owed to all citizens and that in some circumstances, such as the Belmarsh prisoners, it is the only constitutional bar between prisoners' basic rights and a knee-jerking, opressive state. What puzzled me, however, was her complete failure to explain how, once a court has ruled an action or piece of legislation to be incompatible with an individual's human rights, we propose to enforce this. So far as I can see, the HRA is simply a fanciful wishlist of values we would like our judiciary, legislature and executive to enforce. However, I cannot see its teeth. Without teeth, it strikes me that the HRA is in fact, quite pointless, as it cannot bind anyone, whether an individual or an emanation of the state.

I know the Reptile has a fair amount to add regarding the consequences of giving the HRA teeth, so I will not open that debate here.

I merely wish to ask the question: if the HRA has neither bark nor bite, what is its purpose?

Let's kick marriage while it's down

It was with weary resignation that I read about the Law Commission's proposals to water down further the status of marriage by according the same or similar financial rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.

I am deeply upset by this development and was going to post a long rant explaining exactly why. However, reading the Telegraph comment pages yesterday, I saw that Mary Kenny had already voiced most of my concerns.

Basically, her concerns (and indeed, mine), are threefold:
1. The proposals undermine an individual's freedom to contract
2. The proposals imperil an individual's property rights
3. The proposals restrict an individual's freedom to decide whether or not to marry.

I would expand Ms Kenny's third point by saying that it represents yet another example of the increasing infantilisation of society. What business is it of the state to impose the rights and responsibilities of a marriage upon a cohabiting couple? It strikes me as absurd that a couple who do not marry (whether as a result of ignorance, apathy or design), and who have therefore not made the same public and formal commitment to each other as a married couple, should expect the same financial treatment. Honestly. If a couple is mature enough to be cohabiting, surely they are grown-up enough to consider the consequences of so doing and to decide to marry if they feel they need the greater financial protection afforded by that institution. If a couple decides not to marry, it's not the state's job to intervene. These people have deliberately chosen to put themselves into that situation. This is especially true now that we have civil partnerships: no couple, whether childless, gay, rich or poor is unable to put into place the legal framework to secure their position.

It strikes me that this is another loopy intitiative by a bunch of liberal, sock and sandal wearing bearded lefties, aimed at redressing the so-called injustice that occurs when a cohabiting couple with children splits up and one partner is left, quite literally, holding the baby.

Why it takes such far-reaching legislation to address what is essentially (from the state's point of view) a non-problem eludes me.

Furthermore, exactly how do we propose to enforce this? Will we deal with claims through the already overburdened family court, or will we use the risible Child Support Agency?

This whole scheme is ridiculous and should be booted out with all due haste.

Sporadic Postings

Just a quick apology: my postings might be a little sporadic over the next week or so. I am totally swamped. Moving house, arranging weddings, full time job, etc, etc.

I will, however, be making an effort to keep posting, despite this!

You couldn't make it up

I read a most amusing story in the Telegraph today. In fact, I can do no better than to quote the opening paragraphs:

"A teenager left at home while his parents were on holiday decided to do some washing - and ended up blowing the roof off and causing £35,000 of damage.

"In a freak string of mishaps, Sean Davey, 18, left a washing basket full of clothes on top of the electric cooker. He then accidentally knocked one of the hob controls, turning on one of the rings, before going out to meet friends.

"The heated ring set fire to the basket of clothes which, in turn, heated a nearby bag of shopping that his sister Nicky, 20, had left for her brother earlier in the day.

"And that caused a can of Sure deodorant to explode with such force that it not only blew out windows but cracked a wall and even, briefly, lifted the roof off the bungalow."

And the most astonishing part of this story? His parents have said they would be willing to leave him home alone again!